Docket No: 1213-20
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. 
 
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  
13 November 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, applicable statutes, regulations, and policies to include the 25 July 2018 Under Secretary of Defense Memo on Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military / Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations.   
 
You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active service on 26 January 1984.  On 31 July 1984, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for three specifications of unauthorized absence (UA).  On 25 October 1984, you began a period of UA.  While on UA, on 3 December 1984, you received a juvenile conviction by civil authorities.  On 27 June 1985, you were convicted at a special court martial conviction for UA.  On 3 July 1985, you were notified of the initiation of administrative separation proceedings by reason of misconduct-commission of a serious offense, at which point, you elected your right to counsel and waived your right to a hearing by an administrative discharge board (ADB).  On 26 July 1985, the discharge authority approved and directed your discharge.  On 5 August 1985, you were discharged with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service by reason of misconduct-commission of a serious offense. 
 
The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade your discharge and your contention you were informed your discharge would automatically upgrade to general after your discharge.  You contend, you were treated worse than a human being upon your release from confinement and return to duty.  Please note that there is no provision in law or regulation that provides for an upgrade of characterization based solely on the passage of time.  After careful consideration of your contentions, the Board did not find evidence of an error or injustice that warrants upgrading your characterization of service.  In reviewing the circumstances of your separation and characterization of service, the Board considered the totality of the circumstances to determine whether relief is appropriate today in the interests of justice in accordance with guidance provided by the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (Wilkie Memo of 25 July 2018).  Accordingly, the Board considered and acknowledged your positive contributions to the Navy, the length of your active duty service to our nation, and your post-discharge achievements.  However, even in light of the USD Memo, the Board still concluded 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. 
 
Sincerely,