Docket No: 10982-19/ 
            8252-17  
Ref: Signature Date 
     
 
Dear : 
 
This letter is in reference to your reconsideration request received on 21 November 2019.  You previously petitioned the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) and were advised that your application had been disapproved.  Your case was reconsidered in accordance with Board procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Sec’y of the Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004).  After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.  Consequently, your application has been denied. 
 
Because your application was submitted with a new statement that was not previously considered, the Board found it in the interest of justice to review your most recent application.  In this regard, your current request was carefully examined by a three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, on 16 January 2020.  The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.  Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, available portions of your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 
 
Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined a personal appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to its 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 16 July 2012.  On 13 August 2013, you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) for a 19-day unauthorized absence and missing movement.  You entered into an agreement to plead guilty at the SCM and waive your right to an administrative discharge board in exchange for the charges not being referred to a higher level court-martial.  Subsequently, you were notified of an administrative action to separate you from the naval service by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.  After you waived your procedural rights, your commanding officer recommended an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service.  The discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct.  On 3 December 2013, you were discharged and assigned a RE-4 (not recommended for reenlistment) reentry code.  On 31 July 2017, the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) upgraded your characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. 
 
The previous Board considered your request to change your reentry code.  Your current application requests reconsideration and again seeks a change to your reentry code.  The Board considered your request to upgrade your reentry code in light of your contention that liberal consideration should be applied to all discharge upgrade requests, “including reenlistment codes.”  The Board noted your contention that its denial of your previous request did not apply the liberal consideration guidance outlined in the Kurta memo.  The Board, noting your contention that “the NDRB has already answered affirmatively to the four questions and all that is left is to acknowledge that there is no statutory bar because the reason for the reenlistment code change is not solely for reenlistment purpose,” determined there was insufficient evidence in the record and in your submissions to warrant a change to your reentry code.  Specifically, the Board noted that you did not provide any medical documentation to support your contentions regarding your mental health diagnosis.  Even liberally considering your contentions and the NDRB’s reasoning for upgrading your characterization of service, absent medical documentation in support of your stated mental health diagnosis which would allow the Board to properly analyze and review your case in accordance with the applicable guidance, the Board did not find evidence of an error or injustice that warrants changing your reentry code. 
 
It is regretted that the circumstances of your reconsideration petition 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 the absence of new matters for reconsideration, the decision of the Board is final, and your only recourse would be to seek relief, at no cost to the Board, from a court of appropriate jurisdiction. 
 
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.