DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

Docket No: 1616-17 

AUG 2 7 2018 

Dear 

This is in reference to your application for correction ofyour naval record pursuant to the 
provisions of Title 10, ofthe United States Code, Section 1552. After careful and conscientious 
consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to 
establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Consequently, your application 
has beeh denied. 

Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal 
appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to their understanding ofthe issue(s) 
involved. Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and 
considered your case based on the evidence of record. 

Although your application was not filed in a timely manner, the Board found it in the interest of 
justice to waive the statute oflimitations and consider your application on its merits. A threemember 
panel ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 8 May 2018. The names and votes ofthe members of the panel 
will be furnished upon request. Your allegations oferror 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, relevant portions ofyour naval record and 
applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 

You enlisted in the Navy and began a period ofactive duty on 1 December 1998. On 4 May 
1999, you began a period ofunauthorized absence (UA) and on 4 June 1999, your commanding 
officer declared you a deserter. You remained in a deserter status until 14 August 1999, when 
you and your mother appeared at a police station to report an accident. At that time, civil 
authorities discovered you were wanted by the armed forces for deserting your unit. You were 
held in civilian confinement until your return to military authorities. On 2 September 1999, you 
submitted a written request for an undesirable discharge for the good of the service in order to 
avoid trial by court-martial for 102 days of UA. Prior to submitting this request for discharge, 
you conferred with a qualified military lawyer, were advised of your rights, and warned of the 
probable adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge. Subsequently, your request for 
discharge was granted and on 16 September 1999, you received an other than honorable 
discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. As a result ofthis action, you were spared the stigma 
of a court-martial conviction and the potential penalties of a punitive discharge and confinement 
at hard labor. However, on 6 May 2015, the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) upgraded 
your characterization of service to general (under honorable conditions) and your reentry code 
remained unchanged. 

The Board in its review ofyour entire record and application, carefully considered your desire to 
change your RE-4 reentry code, stating that you had used all ofyour administrative remedies 
within the Navy, your RE-4 reentry code was properly assigned in 1999, you enlisted in the 
Army National Guard and have been honorably serving for more than 15yrs, served a tour in 
Iraq, and have been advanced to Sergeant First Class. You believe that the RE-4 code hinders 
your advancement in the Army, is unfairly punitive, a reentry code is a screening device and not 
intended to be punishment, and does not reflect your current desirability as a service member. 
The Board agreed with your statement that the RE-4 reentry code was properly assigned in 1999 
and believed that this to be a valid statement today. The Board commands you on the success 
you have had in the Army but found no error or injustice with your RE-4 code. The Board noted 
that you should address your argument with your Army chain of command concerning the RE-4 
code hindering your advancement. The Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to 
warrant changing your RE-4 reentry code given your misconduct. 

It is regretted that the circumstances of your 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 or other matter not previously considered by the Board. In this regard, it is important to 
keep in mind that a presumption of regularity 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