DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490                                                           

Docket No: 9618-18 
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 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 3 September 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. 
 
Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance with or without counsel would not materially add to its understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. 
 
You reenlisted in the Navy on 11 March 1986.  On 6 May 1989, you absented yourself from the without authorization (unauthorized absence or “UA”).  You surrendered on board your ship on 8 May 1989.  Two days later, on 10 May 1989, you again absented yourself from the without authorization.  On 12 May 1989, you missed your ship’s movement.  On 9 June 1989, you were declared a deserter.  On 11 July 1989, you were apprehended by civil authorities and returned to military custody.  On 17 July 1989, you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of two specifications of UA totaling 63 days, and missing ship’s movement.  You were sentenced to confinement for 30 days, reduction to E-1, and to be discharged from the naval service with a bad conduct discharge (BCD).  After the BCD was approved at all levels of review, you were discharged on 19 June 1990. 
 
The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors in your case, including your college transcript, the letter from your underwriting manager, your background screening report, your driving record, your desire to upgrade your discharge, and contentions that you had exceptional service while in the Navy, earned Sailor of the year in 1986, met and exceeded all the Navy’s conduct and performance standards, and have several 4.0 evaluations and commendations in your record.  However, the Board found that these factors were insufficient to warrant relief given the seriousness of your misconduct as evidenced by your SPCM conviction. 
 
Regarding your contention that you had exceptional service, earned Sailor of the year in 1986, met and exceeded all the Navy’s conduct and performance standards, and that you have several 4.0 evaluations and commendations in your record, the Board noted that a sailor’s service is characterized at the time of discharge based on performance during the current enlistment. 
 
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.