DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 891-18 Ref: Signature Date Dear : This letter 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 11 April 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 Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 10 September 1986. On 8 October 1986, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for wrongfully leaving your rifle unsecured. On 6 January 1989, you received your second NJP for wrongfully being in the company of a female in another Marine’s assigned room; wrongfully having sexual intercourse with a woman not your wife; wrongfully using reproachful words to a Marine Lance Corporal; and wrongfully using provoking words. Six months later, on 7 June 1989, you were convicted by summary court-martial of dereliction of duty and disrespect to a noncommissioned officer. The record also shows you were counseled on four separate occasions regarding your deficiencies. Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions, at which time you elected your procedural right to consult with legal counsel and to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB). An ADB was convened and found that you committed misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions and recommended that you be administratively separated from the naval service with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service. The Staff Judge Advocate found the proceedings were sufficient in law and fact to support administrative discharge. The separation authority concurred with the ADB recommendation, and directed that you be discharged with an OTH by reason of misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions. On 28 September 1989, you were so discharged. You request an upgrade to your discharge and contend that you were previously unaware how an OTH discharge would affect you and need medical assistance caused by your time in service. Your further contend that you “suffer from some of the presumptive conditions that have now been approved for help from the [Veterans Administration].” The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors in your case, including your desire to upgrade your discharge, and your contention that you did not know that having a discharge under OTH conditions would ever affect you, and that because of your time in service you request an upgrade of your discharge because you need medical assistance. The Board concluded that these factors were insufficient to warrant relief given the seriousness of your repeated misconduct. The Board noted the record shows that you were specifically notified of your procedural rights and the probable consequences of administrative separation, consulted with legal counsel, and waived your right to proceed before an administrative discharge board. In doing so, you gave up your first and best opportunity to advocate for retention or a more favorable characterization of service. Under the totality of the circumstances, the Board in its review discerned no impropriety or inequity in the discharge action that would warrant a change in your characterization of service. Regarding your implicit contention that you were exposed to contaminated water while serving at , Public Law 112-154, “Honoring America's Veterans and Caring for Families Act of 2012,” requires the Veterans Administration to provide health care to veterans with one or more of 15 specified illnesses or conditions. You should contact the nearest office of the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) concerning your right to apply for benefits or appeal an earlier unfavorable determination. It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken at this time. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the submission of new and material evidence. New evidence is evidence 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, 6/28/2019