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

Docket No: 1253-19 
Ref: Signature date 


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 4 February 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, 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 duty on 5 April 1988.  During the period from 13 October 1988 to 9 February 1990, you received three non-judicial punishments (NJP) for three specifications of unauthorized absence (UA), one of which was terminated by your apprehension by civil authorities, and totaling 102 days in sum.  Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative action to separate you from the naval service by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.  After you were advised of, and waived, your procedural rights, your commanding officer (CO) “strongly” recommended your “expeditious separation” with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.  The discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed an OTH discharge due to misconduct.  On 13 March 1990, you were so discharged. 

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade your discharge, contentions that your wife went back to and tried to commit suicide while you were in the Navy, and that you need Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) benefits due to your health issues. However, the Board concluded that seriousness of your misconduct outweighed your desire to upgrade your discharge. 

In regard to your contention that your wife went back to and tried to commit suicide, the Board noted that there is no evidence in your record and you submitted none, to support your contention.  The Board also noted that the record shows that you were notified of and waived your right to present your case to an administrative board (ADB).  In doing so, you gave up your first and best opportunity to advocate for retention or a more favorable characterization of service. 
 
In regard to your contention that you need DVA benefits due to your health issues, whether or not you are eligible for benefits is a matter under the cognizance of the DVA, and you may contact the nearest office of the DVA concerning your right to apply for benefits.  If you have been denied benefits, you may appeal that denial under procedures established by the DVA. 

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. 

Sincerely,