Docket No: 7441-19 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 9 December 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 February 2006. On 11 October 2006, you had an emergency psychiatric evaluation following a suicidal gesture. The medical officer noted that you had history of a suicide attempt by cutting his wrists prior to joining the Navy that was not disclosed at the time of your enlistment. However, he opined that because you did not have formal treatment after the suicide attempt, there was no evidence that you fraudulently concealed the information, and it could have been erroneously not discovered. Additionally, the medical officer noted you were not motivated to engage in available treatments, would be an unacceptable long-term risk for suicide, and recommended an expedited administrative separation. On 16 October 2006, administrative discharge action was initiated. After being afforded all of your procedural rights, you waived them, and your case was forwarded to the separation authority for review. Your commanding officer recommended that you receive a general (under honorable conditions) discharge and the separation authority approved your separation from the Navy. On 26 October 2006, you were counseled that you were not eligible for reenlistment. On 31 October 2006, you were discharged with a general characterization of service, narrative reason for separation “Erroneous Entry,” separation code “JFC,” and a reentry (RE) code of RE-4. You request the Board change your narrative reason for separation, separation code, and RE code You assert the changes are necessary to “better reflect the reasons I feel are correct.” You claim your assignment to surface fleet was due “to a third party’s faulty psychological decision based primarily on my size, not because of my own recourse.” Additionally, you claim you were offered a discharge because the Navy was at fault, and that your contract would be voided so that you could rejoin. Lastly, you stated you only recently discovered that your DD Form 214 read “Erroneous Entry.” In support of your petition, you attached a personal statement. Originally, you intended to be a Seabee, but were approached by an officer who urged you to go into submarine service. At “A” school, you completed a psychological profile during intake and were evaluated by a doctor to determine if you had claustrophobic tendencies due to your size. You toured a and reported it felt tight, but exciting, and you did not experience panic or anxiety. You said the doctor felt you would develop claustrophobia and recommended surface fleet based on his own conclusions. You reported to the undesignated, which you assumed was usual for new Sailor, so you waited 3 weeks before asking about it. You felt troubled and sought assistance from clergy who suggested you see a doctor. The doctor told you had numerous signs of depression and offered medication. Additionally, you claim the doctor told you the Navy was at fault and suggested an erroneous or voided contract that would allow you to be discharged, rejoin the Navy, and start over. Additionally, you stated that during your discharge you were treated with disdain by administrative personnel who you believe thought “I forged my entry into the Navy.” You stated you never signed up for benefits because you always had a good job with benefits and the VA is so burdened that you did not want to inundate them. However, when you applied for a VA loan you were denied because of your “discharge code.” You stated you only recently learned a RE-4 means you can never reenlist and it infuriated you because you already struggled with personnel due to discrimination about your size. Lastly, you assert you were not a bad sailor even if your tour was short because you had no issues and no disciplinary actions. The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your record of service and contentions but concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change to your narrative reason for separation, separation code, or RE code as the Board found no error in the records. The Board noted that you provided no evidence beyond your statement to support your contentions regarding your narrative reason for separation and separation code. Absent of such evidence, the Board relied upon the presumption of regularity and presumed that the officials acted in good faith according to governing law and policy. With respect to your contention that you were unaware your RE code meant you were ineligible for reenlistment, the Board noted you signed a page 13 counseling entry about your RE code. 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.