DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
JDR
Docket No: 5942-14
6 July 2015
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.
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 for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, considered your application on
5 June 2015. 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, 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.
You enlisted in the Navy, began a period of active duty on
14 November 2007, and served without disciplinary incident. On
8 April 2008, you were diagnosed with adjustment disorder with
mixed anxiety and depressed mood and occupational problem. On
12 May 2008, you submitted a request for separation to your
commanding officer, referencing the diagnosis as a basis for
separation.
Subsequently, administrative discharge action was initiated by
reason of convenience of the government due to a physical or
mental condition. At that time you elected to waive your right
to consult with legal counsel. Your case was forwarded,
recommending an honorable discharge by reason of a condition not
a disability. The separation authority approved and directed an
honorable discharge and, on 5 June 2007, you were so discharged.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your period of service, desire to change your reentry code, and
your assertion that you were never issued a medical dog tag.
Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not
sufficient to warrant an upgrade to your reentry code given your
commanding officer’s conclusion that you had no potential for
further naval service. With regard to your assertion, the Board
determined that there was insufficient evidence, and you
submitted none, to support a conclusion that your record is in
error because you were not issued a medical alert tag.
Specifically, the Board concluded there was no causal
relationship between not having a medical alert tag and being
given an RE-4 reentry code. Accordingly, your application has
been denied.
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 within one year from the date of the Board's
decision. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by
the Board prior to making its decision in your case. 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,
ROBERT J. O'NEILL
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4676 14
In regard to your assertion, the Board noted that the record contains documented evidence that the assignment of an RE-4B reentry code was not due to an administrative error and WaS appropriate for your situation. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in your case. 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6976 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 June 2015. 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. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in your case.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR1359 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 March 2015. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your record of service and desire to upgrade your reentry code. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3611 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, Sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 May 2015. At that time, you were assigned an RE-3C reentry code. 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2631 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 March 2015. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your record of service and desire to change your RE-4 reentry code. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2422 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 March 2015. 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, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the ‘burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR823 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 February 2015. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7192 14_Redacted
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. Further, an RE-3P reentry code is authorized when a Marine is discharged, due to failing the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4025 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 April 2015. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case, given the seriousness of your misconduct and you were not recommended for reenlistment. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2400 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 March 2015. 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. The Board also considered your assertion that the GCM sentence was.