DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 

Docket No: 00092-16 
FEB 08 2017 

Dear : 

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

Although your application was not filed in a timely manner, the Board found it in the interest of 
justice to waive the statute of limitations and consider your application on its merits. A threemember 
panel ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 21November2016. 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 of probable material error or injustice. 

You began a period of active duty in the Marine Corps on 3 April 2006. You served without 
incident for over a year and a half. On 7 November 2008, you received nonjudicial punishment 
(NJP) for disrespect toward a no-commissioned officer, assault on a fellow Marine, and drunk 
and disorder conduct that brought discredit upon the Armed Forces, and were awarded reduction 
in rank. On 7 April 2009, you received a second NJP for physically controlling a vehicle while 
impaired, and were awarded forfeiture ofpay, extra duty, and restriction. Your service record 
indicates that on 27 January 2010, you were counseled on your receipt of a reenlistment (RE) 
code ofRE-3C due to rank restriction. On·2 April 2010, you were discharged from the Marine 
Corps with an honorable discharge characterization, in the rank ofE-2, with a reentry code of 
RE-3C. 

The Board considered that you request a change to your RE-3C code on the basis oferror, 
specifically that you believe that an RE-3C code indicates that you are a conscience objector. 
Furthermore, the Board noted that your state "this is preventing me from doing so" and inferred 
you believed that the RE-3C was unjustly preventing you from benefits and/or ability to pursue 
certain career plans, including military enlistment. When making its determination, the Board 
reviewed Marine Corps Order (MCO) 1900.16C, "Separation and Retirement Manual." 

The Board, in its review ofyour entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially 
mitigating factors. The Board also considered whether the RE-3C was issued erroneously or 
unjustly, and on the basis of a wrongfully assigned conscientious objector status. MCO 
1900.16C states that an RE-3C is assigned in the Marine Corps "(w)hen directed by CMC or 
when not eligible and disqualifying factor is not covered by another code." Furthermore, MCO 
1900.16C requires that service records state the reason for the assignment ofthe RE-3C. A 
review ofyour record establishes that on 27 January 2010, you were counseled in writing that 
you would receive an RE-3C due to "rank restriction." This counseling entry is properly 
reflected in your record. Neither a review of your service record nor the information and 
assertions in your request f01f relief establish that the RE-3C code related in any way no conscious 
objector status. Your RE-3d code was assigned due to rank restriction, and was doctimented 
correctly in your record. The Board concluded that the RE-3C was not erroneously issued. With 
respect to allegations ofinjustice, the Board noted that at the end of your service, you held the 
rank ofE-2. Accordingly, your application has been denied. 

Itis 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 of new 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 ofan official naval record, the burden is 
on the applicant to demonstrate the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 



Executive Director