DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 6094-19 Ref: Signature Date 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. A three-member panel of the Board (Board), sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 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 14 July 2016. On 26 June 2017, you were issued no cost temporary additional duty (TAD) orders to assist with your wife’s pregnancy. Your orders expired on 17 September 2017; you did not return to your command until 27 September 2017. Your record reflects a 7 December 2017 entry that indicates a report of offense for violation of Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 86 (unauthorized absence (UA)) and Article 92 (failing to obey a lawful order by wrongfully engaging in outside employment through your YouTube channel without seeking and obtaining prior written permission. On 14 December 2017, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for the period of UA from 17 to 27 September 2017. You appealed the NJP; Commanding Officer (CO) Naval Special Warfare Basic Training Command responded to the appeal. In his 4 January 2018 response, the CO denied the appeal and addressed the issues you raised. He noted that you plead guilty to the period of UA in question, that that the command did not pursue suspected misconduct from late October through early November, that you were dis-enrolled from BUDs due to a non-punitive administrative matter, and that you were in a negative leave balance so you would not have been able to take leave over the holidays following your NJP. On 25 January 2018, you received a second NJP for a period of UA on 27 December 2017, and for false official statement. The following day you were notified of administrative separation proceedings against you with a recommendation for a general discharge. You were discharged from the Navy on 3 April 2018, on the basis of Misconduct (Pattern of Misconduct), with a general characterization of service and a reentry (RE) code of RE-4. In your petition to the Board, you ask that your RE-4 be change to an RE-3R. You state you did not complete the initial skills training pipeline because of minor disciplinary infractions and unsatisfactory performance impeded your professional growth criteria. You also ask that the facts surrounding your personal circumstances be taken into consideration by the Board. You state you had a miscommunication with your command about approved leave, and that you were meeting with an attorney after gaining prior consent from your chain of command for the period of UA for which you received NJP in January 2018. You also assert that you sought legal counsel to obtain a hardship discharge, but your chain of command levied two NJPs against you instead. The Board carefully reviewed your application, your personal circumstances as described in your request, and the information reflected in your record. The Board noted that RE-3R is assigned for not meeting professional growth criteria as outlined in MILPERSMAN 1160-030. The Board found that your situation is not one in which you did not meet the advancement requirements of MILPERSMAN 1160-030, but rather an administrative discharge predicated on a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by two NJPs. The Board relied heavily on your CO’s response to the appeal to your first NJP, and determined that your unit appears to have tried to accommodate your personal situation but you committed the misconduct of UA despite your unit’s support. The Board found that the RE-4 that you received upon discharge from the Navy is supported by your two NJPs and does not merit corrective action. 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, 12/9/2019