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. 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 26 September 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 on 8 November 2011.  On your E-3 evaluation for the period ending 15 July 2013, you were “highly recommended for advancement and retention.”  You state that in February 2014, you went to non-judicial punishment (NJP) and were reduced in rank to E-2 and received forfeitures of pay and 60 days’ restriction.  On your E-2 evaluation for the period ending 15 July 2014, you were still “recommended for advancement and retention,” despite having the NJP in your record.  However, on 30 November 2014, you received a special evaluation to document your failure to obtain the mandatory Enlisted Aviation Warfare Specialist (EAWS) qualification within the 30-month requirement.  On this special evaluation, you were “not recommended for advancement and retention in the United States Navy or Naval Reserve.”  Similarly, for your next periodic E-2 evaluation on 15 July 2015, you still had not obtained the EAWS qualification and again were “not recommended for advancement and retention in the United States Navy or Naval Reserve.”  On 7 November 2015 you were discharged at the rank of E-2 with an honorable characterization of service upon the completion of your required active service obligation.  You were also assigned a reentry code of RE-4, which indicates that you are not recommended for reenlistment in the armed forces.  In this regard, you received the correct reentry code based on your factual situation as you were not recommended for either advancement or retention following your inability to complete the EAWS qualifications in a timely manner. 

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors in your case, including your contentions that your RE-4 code was is in error, that you request an RE-1 code in order to return to service, that your rank of E-2 is incorrect due to time served in that rank, that you should have been promoted to E-3 after spending 9 months as an E-2, that you remained an E-2 until the end of your contract despite multiple reminders to your chain of command of your promotion to E-3, which you contend they acknowledged was correct but never changed, and that you were unaware what the reentry code of RE-4 meant because you were told it just meant you were getting out of the service.  However, the Board concluded that these factors were insufficient to warrant changing your reentry code, promoting you to E-3, or granting any other relief.  The Board noted that there is no evidence in the record, and you did not provide any, to substantiate your contentions.  The Board noted that your in-service record documentation reflects that on your last two evaluations you were specifically “not recommended” for promotion or retention following your inability to obtain the EAWS qualification.  Accordingly, the Board concluded that your rank at discharge was correct, and that you received the correct reentry code based on your command’s adverse recommendations. 

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.