Dear : 
 
This is in reference to your application of 8 August 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 9 January 2020.  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 from both you and your attorney, relevant portions of your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 
 
You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 28 June 1993.  On 1 October 1996, you went to a Summary Court-Martial (SCM) for two offenses:  (a) a period of unauthorized absence (UA) lasting 50 days that was terminated by your arrest, and (b) for missing the movement of the  on the day you commenced your UA.  You pled guilty to both offenses and as punishment you received a reduction in rank to E-1, forfeitures of pay, and confinement for 30 days.  On 18 October 1996, you were notified that you were being processed for an administrative discharge by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense as evidenced by your SCM conviction.  You elected in writing to waive your right to present your case to an administrative separation board.  On 22 November 1996, consistent with your chain of command’s recommendation, you were discharged from the Navy with an other than honorable conditions (OTH) characterization of service. 
 
The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors in your case, including your contentions that your discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 39 months of service with no other adverse action, and that you want to further your career as a police officer.  However, the Board found that your contentions and mitigating factors were not sufficient to upgrade your discharge or grant any other relief in your case given the overall seriousness of your misconduct and your disregard for good order and discipline on active duty.  Further, the Board observed that the record shows you were notified of and waived some of your procedural rights in connection with your administrative separation.  In doing so, you gave up your first and best opportunity to advocate for retention or a more favorable characterization of service.  The Board also noted that, although one’s service is generally characterized at the time of discharge based on performance and conduct throughout the entire enlistment, the conduct or performance of duty reflected by only a single incident of misconduct may provide the underlying basis for discharge characterization.  
 
Additionally, the Board reviewed and considered your application under the recent guidance provided in the Under Secretary of Defense’s memorandum dated 25 July 2018 entitled, “Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations” (USD Memo).  The purpose of the USD Memo is to ease the process for veterans seeking redress and assist Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records “in determining whether relief is warranted on the basis of equity, injustice, or clemency.”  The USD Memo noted that “increasing attention is being paid to…the circumstances under which citizens should be considered for second chances and the restoration of rights forfeited,” and that “BCM/NRs have the authority to upgrade discharges or correct military records to ensure fundamental fairness.”  The USD Memo sets clear standards and principles to guide BCM/NRs in application of their equitable relief authority, and further explains that boards shall consider a number of factors to determine whether to grant relief.  However, even in light of the USD Memo, the Board still concluded that, given the totality of the circumstances, your request does not merit relief. 
 
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.