Docket No: 3636-19/ 
           1051-01  
Ref: Signature Date 
                                                                                          

Dear .   
 
This letter is in reference to your reconsideration request received on 27 March 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 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 21 August 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.  
 
You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 16 June 1999.  On 25 June 1999, you were diagnosed with an anaphylactic reaction to lidocaine which the doctor determined was not correctable, resulting in a recommendation for entry level separation (ELS).  Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of failing medical physical procurement standards.  After you waived your procedural rights, the discharge authority directed an uncharacterized (UNCHAR) ELS.  On 1 July 1999, you were discharged and assigned a RE-4 (not recommended for reenlistment) reentry code.  On 28 March 2000, the Board upgraded your reentry code from a RE-4 to a RE-3E (inducted, enlisted, extended, or reenlisted in error).  On 4 August 2000, you were issued a Correction to Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 215) which reflected your assigned RE-3E reentry code.   
 
The previous Board considered your request to be reenlisted with the appropriate rank and consideration of your lost time and wages.  Your current application requests reconsideration and again seeks a change to your reentry code from RE-3E to RE-1 (recommended for reenlistment), “correction to DD 214 and DD 215,” rank of E-4, and the letter “G” removed as your middle initial.  The Board noted your record reflects service in the U.S. Naval Reserve after your UNCHAR ELS from active duty on 1 July 1999 but noted the requested relief appears to specifically pertain to your time on active duty from 16 June 1999 to 1 July 1999.  The Board considered your request to upgrade your reentry code in light of your contention that you “properly graduated from high school in 1983 and from college in 1996,” and have continued your education throughout your time in the military.  The Board noted a RE-3E is not assigned as a reflection of one’s education, as you appear to believe based on your contention, but is assigned when one has been “inducted, enlisted, extended, or reenlisted in error.”  As the Board determined in 2000, the appropriate and authorized reentry code for your discharge is RE-3E.  The Board also considered your contention that your rank should be changed from E-3 to E-4 based on your “education prior to enlistment,” but noted education prior to enlistment does not determine one’s rank within the service.  The Board also considered your contention that the “G” listed as your middle initial on your Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) should be removed because you “don’t know how this came to be” and does not reflect your middle initial.  A review of your full record indicated the use of different names throughout, such as “,” “,” and “.”  The Board also noted the birth certificate in your record that shows your birth record was amended on 04 December 2001 to reflect the name “,” but further noted there is no explanation in your record for the different names used throughout.  The Board determined there was insufficient evidence to support your contention that your name should be corrected to remove the “" from “.”  Lastly, having found no errors on your current DD Form 214 and DD Form 215, the Board determined there was insufficient evidence to support your request to correct your DD Form 214 and DD Form 215.   
 
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. 
 
Sincerely,