Docket No:  2741-19 
Ref: Signature date 

Dear  
 
This 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 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 12 November 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, 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 14 December 1999.  On 25 April 2000, you were seen by medical officers for pelvic pain and subsequently diagnosed with possible endometriosis.  On 15 May 2000 you were diagnosed with endometriosis not correctable to meet Navy standards and acknowledged such diagnosis.  Subsequently, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of fraudulent entry, as you were treated for endometriosis prior to your enlistment, but did not reveal that information.  On 23 May 2000, your commanding officer (CO) served notice of administrative discharge proceedings.  On 23 May 2000, you waived counsel and the right to submit statements.  On 26 May 2000, the separation authority concurred with your CO’s recommendation and directed your discharge with an entry level separation.  You received your discharge, an entry level separation, on 6 June 2000. 
 
The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to remove the reason for separation code and assertions that you told this information to a recruiter and the recruiter told you to not mention it.  Additionally, the Board considered your assertions that you thought it was a medical discharge, did not give fraudulent information, and are not a fraudulent 
person.  Finally, the Board considered your assertions that the JDA code is unjust because you just wanted to serve your country, it will look like you are liar on job applications and the punishment was too harsh for a kid who was sick and could not continue her service.  There was no evidence in your record, and none beyond your allegation, that the recruiter directed you not to disclose your prior surgery, which you had an obligation to disclose prior to entry.  Consequently, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, the Board presumed regularity of the official actions of the public officers involved in your recruiting.  The Board noted you waived your rights to offer statements to your CO.  By doing so, you gave up your first, opportunity to advocate for retention or a more favorable characterization of service when more details are available.  The Board concluded these factors and assertions were not sufficient to warrant a change to your narrative reason or administrative code given your condition and failure to disclose, which resulted in an administrative separation. 
 
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.