DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 
 
Docket No: 00308-16 

Dear : 

This is in reference to your application for correction ofyour naval record pursuant to the 
provisions oftitle 10 ofthe United States Code, section 1552 

A three-member panel ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 14 November 2016. The names and votes ofthe members ofthe 
panel will be furnished upon request. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in 
accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings ofthis 
Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted ofyour application, together 
with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, 
regulations, and policies. 

After careful and conscientious consideration ofthe entire record, the Board found the evidence 
submitted was insufficient to establish the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. 

You began a period ofactive duty in the Navy on 7 August 2013. Your evaluation for the period 
of4 October 2013 through 15 June 2014 identifies you as a "rising star." Your next evaluation 
for the period of 16 June 2014 through 30 April 2015 shows a significant decline in performance 
with a drop from "Must Promote" to "Promotable," and comments on performance stating that 
you were an inconstant performer who did not achieve his full potential. On 30 April 2015, you 
were discharged from the Navy with an honorable characterization ofservice on the basis ofa 
condition not a disability, with a reenlistment (RE) code ofRE-4 

The Board considered your request for a change to your reenlistment code on the basis ofyour 
contention that the decision to separate you was made in haste and that you were not given 
proper treatment for the situation. You state that you have since received medical treatment and 
evaluation, have received clearance from your physician, and that you are ready to return to 
military service. When making its determination, the Board noted that your application for 
correction to your record did not contain medical information from your period ofactive duty or 
documents supporting your contentions about post-service medical treatment. 

The Board, in its review ofyour entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially 
mitigating factors, such as your first evaluation that identified you as having high potential for 
military service. The Board noted that your available service record does not contain medical 
information relating to your separation. The Board applied the presumption ofregularity and 
noted that in the absence ofcontrary information, your honorable discharge on the basis of a 
condition not a disability appears to have been processed without error or injustice. Furthermore, 
an RE-4 code typically accompanies a separation authorized byMILPERSMAN 1910-12 and 
based on the narrative reason "Condition, Not a Disability." The Board also noted that you did 
not submit supporting medical documentation and/or diagnosis and treatment information with 
your application for correction to your record. The Board found that in consideration ofthe 
regulatory guidance for separations based on a condition not a disability and the available service 
record information, your honorable discharge with an REc4 code was issued without error or 
injustice. Accordingly, your arplication has been denied. I 

In regard to your request for a personal appearance, be advised that the Board regulations state 
personal appearances before the Board are not granted as a right, but only when the Board 
determines that such an appearance will serve some useful purpose. In your case, the Board 
determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the 
evidence ofthe record. 

It is regrettable that the circumstances ofyour case are such that favorable action cannot be 
taken. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission ofnew and 
material evidence within one year from the date ofthe Board's decision. New evidence is 
evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in your case. In this 
regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption ofregularity attaches to all official 
records. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is 
on the applicant to demonstrate the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 


Executive Director