DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 6816-18 Date: Ref Signature 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 28 August 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 service on 22 January 1990. From the period beginning on 24 August 1990 to 15 March 1991 you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) on three occasions for the following offenses: two specifications of absent from appointed place of duty, assault, disorderly conduct, dereliction in the performance of duty, and provoking speeches or gestures. On 19 March 1991, you were notified of the initiation of administrative separation processing by reason of misconduct due to pattern of misconduct, and misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense, and you waived counsel and your procedural rights. On 21 March 1991, your commanding officer recommended administrative separation by reason of misconduct due to pattern of misconduct, and misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. On 17 April 1991, the discharge authority approved and directed an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service. You were discharged on 8 May 1991. The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your request to upgrade your discharge due to your contentions that the misconduct was a long time ago, you were young, you were dealing with family issues, and you wish you could do it all over. Additionally, you state, you would like to receive Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits. The Board noted you provided no evidence to support your contention you were dealing with family issues beyond the letter from your pastor, whom you met after your separation. In regard to your contentions the Board considered your youth and immaturity as factor in your behavior, but concluded that the severity of your misconduct outweighed your mitigating factors. Further, no discharge is automatically upgraded due to the passage of time, and there is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining veterans benefits. The VA determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not Board. You may contact the nearest office of VA concerning your ability to apply for benefits based on a limited period of your service. The Board in it review discerned no material error or injustice in the 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.