Docket No: 1193-20
Ref: Signature Date                          
               

 
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.     
  
A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 
5 April 2021.  The names and votes of the panel members 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 the 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, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, to include the 25 July 2018 guidance from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness regarding equity, injustice or clemency determinations (Wilkie Memo).    
   
You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 20 December 1982.  On 12 March 1984, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for seven days of unauthorized absence (UA), disobedience of a lawful order, and falsifying an official statement.  On 21 December 1984, you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of two specifications of UA totaling 10 days, missing ship’s movement, breaking restriction, wrongfully and unlawfully stealing, opening and secreting mail matter, and wrongfully possessing another person’s I.D. card.  You were, sentenced to a period of confinement, forfeiture of pay, and a reduction in paygrade.  On 4 March 1985, administrative discharge action was initiated to separate you from the Navy for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.  After you were advised of your procedural rights, you elected to waive your right to request to have your case heard before an administrative discharge board.  On 7 March 1985, your case was, forwarded to the separation authority recommending that you receive and other than honorable (OTH) discharge for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.  On 16 March 1985, the separation authority directed that you receive an OTH discharge for misconduct.  On 22 March 1985, you were discharged from the Navy with an OTH characterization of service. 
 
Your request was fully and carefully considered by the Board in light of the Secretary of Defense’s Memorandum, “Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requested by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder” of 3 September 2014 and the "Clarifying Guidance to Military Discharge Review Board and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Requests by Veterans for Modification of their Discharge Due to Mental Health Conditions, Sexual Assault, or Sexual Harassment" memorandum of 25 August 2017. 
 
The Board carefully considered all potentially mitigating factors to determine whether the interests of justice warrant relief in your case in accordance with the Wilkie Memo.  These included, but were not limited to your contentions that: (a) during your service, you had outstanding performance reviews; (b) problems began when you were 19 years old and having to experience the removal of dead bodies after the Beirut Lebanon Marine headquarters bombing and you were psychologically never the same after that; (c) there was a bias that the executive officer of the ship had with you, that the ruling of your court-martial sent you back to full duty, but it was on the same ship; (d) since that was not beneficial to you, you were granted an OTH discharge; and (e) since your discharge, you have successfully been working in the computer field since 1985, in an executive level position as a managing consultant for one of the world’s top computer security firms.  Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief.  Specifically, the Board determined that your misconduct, as evidenced by your NJP and SPCM conviction, outweighed these mitigating factors.  Accordingly, given the totality of the circumstances, the Board determined that your request does not merit relief.   
  
You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon 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,