DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

SMW
Docket No 5514-07
18 January 2008

Dear

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552.

A three--member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 January 2008. 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, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.

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.

On 27 January 1989, you enlisted in the Na~ at age 18. During the period 26 to 27 October 1992, you were in an unauthorized absence (UA) status, but it appears that no disciplinary action was taken. On 30 October 1992, you began another UA and on 2 November 1992, you missed the movement of your ship. On 27 November 1992, the UA ended. On 28 January 1993, you had nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for the 28 day period of UA and missing the movement of your ship. On 5 February 1993, an enlisted performance record entry indicated that you were not recommended for reenlistment. On 5 February 1993, you were honorably released from active duty due to completion of your required active service and assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code. On 25 April 1997, you were honorably discharged due to the expiration of your obligated service.

Regulations authorize the assignment of an RE~-4 reenlistment code to members who are not recommended for reenlistment. Given your misconduct that resulted in NJP and since you have been treated no differently than others in your situation, the Board could not find an error or injustice in the assignment of the RE-4 reenlistment code. Accordingly, your application has been
denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

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 submission of new and material evidence or other matter not previously 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,

							W. DEAN PFEIFFER
							Executive Director