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

Docket No: 4372-17 
OCT 09 2017 

Dear

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions ofTitle I 0, 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 oflimitations and consider your application on its merits. A three­member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered yqur application on 15 June 2017. 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 of this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted ofyour application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 

You reenlisted in the Navy on 23 June 1998. On 19 April 1997, you declined Level III treatment. On 14 May 1997, you were diagnosed as alcohol dependent, and it was recommended you parti~ipate in intensive outpatient treatment. On 5 September 1997, you once again declined Level III treatment. On 21 October 1998, you completed Level I alcohol treatment. On 2 November 1999, you were again diagnosed as alcohol dependent, and, as a result, on 8 November 1999, you received a page 13 counseling directing you to attend intensive outpatient treatment which you declined. On 24 January 2000, you submitted a statement explaining you refused to complete training because you did not feel you were an alcoholic. On 4 February 2000, after receiving another page 13 counseling for abusing alcohol, you finally agreed to attend intensive outpatient treatment for alcohol dependence. After only two weeks oftreatment, on 30 March 2000, you returned to the command with documentation should you had failed to comply with the program and with an extremely poor prognosis. 

Subsequently, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to alcohol abuse-rehabilitation failure. After you waived your procedural rights, your commanding officer discharged you with an honorable characterization of service on 15 May 2000 by reason of alcohol abuse-rehabilitation failure and assigned a RE-4 reentry code because you were not recommended for reenlistment. 
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, your desire to change your reentry code to be commensurate with your honorable characterization of service, and your post-service record ofno civilian incidents or problems with employers. The Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case because your assigned reentry code was authorized and appropriately assigned in accordance with established regulations and guidelines at the time of your separation. Additionally, the Board considered your contention that a RE-4 is associated with a bad conduct discharge (BCD), and you did not receive a BCD. Unfortunately, the military representative that provided you information regarding reentry codes was incorrect; a RE-4 is not associated with a BCD but reflects that you are not recommended for reenlistment. Further, you contend that the military discharged you rather than help you deal with personal issues. You also contend that you did not have a history ofalcohol related issues which is evidenced by your ability to hold a security clearance. The Board noted the extensive treatment you were offered and found the evidence did not support your contention. Again, you were assigned the most appropriate reentry code for your situation. Accordingly, your application has been denied. 

It is regretted that the circumstances ofyour case are such that favorable action cannot be taken at this time. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the submission of new and material evidence. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board. 

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