Docket No. 2207-20 
Ref: Signature Date 


This is in reference to your application of 29 February 2020 for correction of your naval record pursuant to Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552.  After careful and conscientious consideration of relevant portions of your naval record and your application, 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 case on its merits.  A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 April 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, 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 their 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. 

A review of your record shows that you entered active duty with the Navy on 28 July 1986.  You received counselling on 11 September 1986 after testing positive for marijuana on your entry-level urinalysis and on 12 December 1987 for failure to pay just debts.  Subsequently, non­judicial punishment was imposed on you for unauthorized absence, willful disobedience of a petty officer, and failure to pay just debts.  You were found guilty at a summary court-martial on 8 December 1988 for unauthorized absence, missing ship’s movement, disobeying a commissioned officer, and wrongful use of marijuana.  Another summary court-martial found you guilty on 28 February 1989 for unauthorized absence ending in apprehension.  These incidents of misconduct resulted in your notification for administrative separation processing for commission of a serious offense, pattern of misconduct, and drug abuse.  After acknowledging your rights, you were discharged on 18 May 1989 with an Other than Honorable (OTH) characterization of service for misconduct.  Post-discharge, you applied to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) for an upgrade to your characterization of service. The NDRB denied your request on 15 August 1990. 

The Board carefully considered your arguments that your record incorrectly reflects an OTH characterization of service.  You assert that you were assigned a General characterization of service on your original DD Form 214.  Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief.  The Board found no evidence in your record that supports your assertion that you received a General characterization of service upon your discharge from the Navy.  Based on your military record, your DD Form 214 correctly reflects your OTH characterization of service.  If you were previously issued a DD Form 214 with a General characterization of service, the Board concluded it was issued erroneously and does not support your request for relief.  Accordingly, the Board found insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant a change to your record. 

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.