Docket No: 1286-20 
Ref: Signature Date 


This is in reference to your application of 22 January 2020 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 19 May 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, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 
Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance with or without counsel will 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 enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 3 August 1983.  On 21 October 1985, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for failure to obey a lawful order.  On 23 April 1986, you received an unsatisfactory evaluation and declined to submit a statement.  On 22 December 1986, despite a plea of not guilty, you were found guilty at special court-martial for disrespect toward an officer.  The Court sentenced you to two months restriction with hard labor (without confinement) and to receipt of a letter of reprimand.  On 9 January 1987, you agreed to extend your enlistment for 21 months for acceptance of permanent change of station (PCS) orders.  On 10 February 1987, you were issued the letter of reprimand resulting from your special court-martial proceedings.  Two days later, on 12 February 1987, your PCS orders were cancelled; in March 1987, your two-year extension was cancelled.  In May 1987, you requested mast with your Commanding Officer (CO); you again requested mast with your CO in June 1987.  On 18 June 1987, you were notified of an administrative action to separate you from the naval service for commission of a serious offense. You elected to appear before an administrative separation board.  On 23 July 1987, an administrative separation board found that you committed misconduct and recommended that you be discharged with a general characterization of service.  Your CO concurred with the administrative separation board’s recommendation.  You were discharged from the Navy on 27 November 1987, on the basis of misconduct-commission of a serious offense, and received a general characterization of service and a reentry (RE) code of RE-4. 

You request an upgrade to your characterization from general to honorable. You state that you were wrongly administratively discharged from the Navy based on false accusations from an officer, were denied your right to defend yourself during the special court-martial proceedings, and that your command precluded you from having your preferred counsel. You assert that you opted to appear before a special court-martial but that the charge sheet was forged to reflect you agreed to NJP.  You assert that your command convened your administrative discharge board on which denied you of both your preferred counsel and availability of having witnesses appear on your behalf.  You claim the administrative separation board was biased.  

Finally, you ask that the Board consider that you are a member of the Officers Association and that you would like an honorable characterization so that you can purchase service credits for your civilian retirement pension.  You plan to retire in June 2020. 

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors in your case, including your contention that you the victim of false accusations by an officer and that your command deprived you of a fair and equitable administrative separation process.  The Board reviewed your assertions and took into account the information reflected in your record.  The Board found that even in light of your claims of injustice, that you were afforded the opportunity to plead not guilty at special court-martial and despite your plea, the government proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt that you disrespected a lieutenant junior grade.  With regard to your administrative separation board, the Board found that you were properly notified of administrative separation proceedings against you on the basis of your special court-martial conviction and that an administrative separation board was appropriately convened on your behalf.  The Board noted that following your administrative separation board, your Commanding Officer responded to your claims of improper procedure at the administrative separation board and nonetheless, concurred with its recommendation that you be administratively discharged with a general characterization of service.  The Board found that even in consideration of your desire to obtain retirement credit for your military service, the misconduct reflected in your record supports your current general discharge.  The Board determined that your record does not reflect an error or an injustice, and that corrective action is not warranted. 

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. 



3