Docket No:  1075-19 
Ref: Signature date 

Dear  
 
This letter is in reference to your application 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. 
 
Your application was filed in a timely manner and the Board found it in the interest of justice to consider your application on its merits.  A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 October 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, as well as applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 
 
You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 3 May 2016.  On 7 September 2018, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for unauthorized absence (UA), failure to obey an order or regulation (releasing a classified message over an unclassified server), and false official statements.  Subsequently, administrative discharge action was initiated to separate you from the naval service by reason of misconduct due to you commission of a serious offense.  In response, you submitted a written statement on your own behalf.  On 29 October 2018, your commanding officer (CO) stated that when you failed to return from liberty in , the crew attempted to verify your wellbeing and whereabouts.  When you turned up a day late, you stated that your flight had been cancelled and rescheduled, when in fact you had “been drinking the night before [your] return flight, overslept, missed [your] return flight, and fabricated a cover story.”  Your CO recommended to the separation authority that you be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service.  On 19 December 2018, you were so discharged with a reentry (RE) code of “RE-4.”   
 
The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors in your case, including your desire to upgrade your RE code, and your assertion that you want your re-enlistment code changed so that you can serve again.  The Board also noted your assertions that you were treated like a 
“criminal” for something that you did not do on “purpose,” but you are a human being and make mistakes.  Finally, the Board noted your assertion that serving in the military is a privilege, getting kicked out the United States military is probably one of the worst things that happened in your life, and you want to enlist in the United States Navy or United States Army.  Unfortunately, the Board concluded that these factors and assertions were insufficient to warrant a change to your discharge given your misconduct, which resulted in NJP for UA, failure to obey an order or regulation, and false official statements constituting commission by you of a serious offense.  An RE-4 indicates a service member is not recommended for reenlistment.  Under the totality of the circumstances, the Board, in its review, discerned no probable material error or injustice in the discharge.   
 
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.