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

Docket No: 10066-19 
Ref: Signature Date 

Dear

This is in reference to your application of 9 September 2019 for correction of your naval record pursuant to Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552.  After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.  Consequently, your application has been denied. 

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 three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 December 2019.  The names and votes of the members of the 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 of this Board.  Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.
 
Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance, with or without counsel, would not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the Board determined a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record.
 
You enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 5 January 2015.  On 18 July 2015, you were discharged with an honorable characterization of service at the completion of your required active service.  On 19 July 2015, you joined a reserve unit.  Between October to December 2015, your command made telephone calls to you and sent unsatisfactory participation letters to your address of record regarding you missing nine drill periods.  However, you did not respond to your command’s attempts to communicate with you.  On 6 January 2016, administrative action to separate you from the naval service was initiated.  On 12 January 2016, a counseling entry was placed in you record indicating that you were eligible, but not recommended for promotion to E-3 due to your pending administrative separation.  On 9 February 2016, you signed an acknowledgement of rights form and indicated you wished to submit a statement.  However, there is no evidence that you submitted a statement in your record.  On 31 May 2016, you were discharged with an under other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service due to unsatisfactory participation in the ready reserve, and assigned a reentry (RE) code of RE-4. 

You request that the Board change your RE code. You assert the RE code is unjust because “the full situation of myfamily’s financial hardship and dependency on me was not known to the authority issuing my discharge.” In support ofyour petition, you attached letters of support from a civilian supervisor, a fellow student, and a family friend, as well as a personal statement.  You wrote:  “My family and I escaped the poverty of the Maoist insurgency in Nepal in March 2013.  I attended high school and was accepted to        .  I joined the Reserve to thank America and for money for college.  Many people think I did it for citizenship but that is not the case.” You were only eligible for a few military occupational specialties, and you opted for truck driver “truck driver by default even though I definitely didn’t want to do it.”  You claim you underestimated the time it would take you to travel between the base to school and work and that you only meant for it to be a temporary launching pad until you joined NROTC at college.  After a few drills, you learned your parents were not in a stable financial situation.  You were juggling a job, school, drill, and still assimilating to life in America, therefore, you “went UA and ignored the calls to return.  This was a cowardly act.”  Lastly, you stated the officer who discharged you made a fair decision using the facts he had because you did not talk to your chain of command about your issues and you would like a second chance.
 
The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors in your case, including your record of service and contentions and concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change to your RE code given your misconduct and the Board found no error in the records.  The Board noted your post-service accomplishments.  With respect to your contention that you were overwhelmed by school, work, helping your parents, and adjusting to your new life in America, the Board noted these are legitimate concerns.  However, you were provided numerous opportunities to discuss these issues with your command to resolve them; however, you merely chose to ignore the commitment you made and ignored the repeated attempts to communicate with you. 

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 the submission of new matters, which will require you to complete and submit a new DD Form 149.  New matters are those not previously presented to or 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 of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely,