Docket No: 10413-18 
Ref: Signature Date 

Dear  
 
This is in reference to your application of 22 October 2018 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 19 November 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, relevant portions of your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 
 
You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active service on 21 April 1992.  According to the information in your record, on 7 March 1994, you requested a good of the service (GOS) discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial for being in an unauthorized absence (UA) status for 187 days.  Although the Board lacked your entire service record, the Board relied on a presumption of regularity that prior to submitting this request, you conferred with a qualified military lawyer, at which time you were advised of your rights and warned of the probable adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge.  Your request was granted and your commanding officer (CO) was directed to issue an other than honorable (OTH) discharge for the good of the service.  As a result of this action, you were spared the stigma of a court-martial conviction, as well as the potential penalties of a punitive discharge.  On 16 March 1994, you were discharged. 
 
As stated previously, the Board relies on a presumption of regularity to support the official actions of public officers and, in the absence of substantial evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Petitioner, the Board presume that you were properly 
discharged from the Navy.  The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors in your case, including your desire to upgrade your discharge and contentions that you went UA due to your wife losing your child and becoming deeply depressed.  You additionally contend that you have been an upstanding citizen, been trouble free, and active in your community.  However, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case given your lengthy period of UA and request for a GOS discharge in lieu of a trial by court-martial.  Regarding your contention that you went UA due to your wife losing your child and becoming deeply depressed, the Board noted that there is no evidence in your record, and you submitted none, to support your contention.  Regarding your contention that you have been an upstanding citizen, been trouble free, and active in the community, the Board noted while commendable, your post service conduct does not sufficiently mitigate your conduct while enlisted in the Navy or the basis for your discharge. 
 
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.