Dear :  
 
This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Section 1552 of Title 10, United States Code.  After careful and conscientious consideration of relevant portions of your naval record and your application, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found the evidence submitted 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 February 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 on 29 December 1994.  On 3 August 1995 you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for unauthorized absence (UA) lasting thirty-eight days.  On 1 September 1995 you broke restriction and commenced a period of UA that lasted until you were apprehended in ,  on 19 March 1998 and returned to military control.   
 
On 18 May 1998 you were convicted at a Special Court-Martial (SPCM) of UA lasting 930 days and breaking restriction.  You received as punishment confinement for four months, a reduction in rank to the lowest enlisted paygrade (E-1), and a discharge from the Navy with a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD).  Upon the completion of appellate review in your case, on 19 January 1999 you were discharged from the Navy with a BCD and assigned an RE-4 reentry code. 
 
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) you served without incident through most of your first year in the Navy; (b) you have been harshly stigmatized and harmed by your BCD; (c) you have been deprived of your honor and good name, which continues to cause you undue harm more than twenty years after your discharge; (d) you are repentant about your misconduct but are haunted by your BCD and such discharge will continue to burden you and your family until it is corrected; (e) you have been punished enough for your misconduct; and (f) you have endured extensive punishment because of your choice to absent yourself to care for your ailing mother.  However, given the totality of the circumstances, the Board determined that your request does not merit relief.   
 
The Board did not find that your record was otherwise so meritorious to deserve an upgrade.  Additionally, the Board determined that Sailors should receive no higher discharge characterization than is due.  The Board concluded that significant negative aspects of your conduct and/or performance greatly outweighed any positive aspects of your military record.  The Board also determined that your misconduct constituted a significant departure from the conduct expected of a Sailor.  Furthermore, the Board noted that the evidence of record did not demonstrate that you were not mentally responsible for your conduct or that you should not be held accountable for your actions.  The Board also noted that there is no provision of federal law or in Navy/Marine Corps regulations that allows for a discharge to be automatically upgraded after a specified number of months or years.  Lastly, absent a material error or injustice, the Board generally will not summarily upgrade a discharge solely for the purpose of facilitating VA benefits, or enhancing educational or employment opportunities.  Accordingly, the Board determined that there was no impropriety or inequity in your discharge, and concluded that your egregious misconduct and complete disregard for good order and discipline clearly merited your BCD.  In the end, the Board concluded that you received the correct discharge characterization code based on the totality of your circumstances, and that such action was in accordance with all Department of the Navy directives and policy at the time of your discharge. 
 
The Board also noted that, although it cannot set aside a conviction, it might grant clemency in the form of changing a characterization of discharge, even one awarded by a court-martial.  However, the Board concluded that despite your contentions this is not a case warranting any clemency.  The Board carefully considered all matters submitted regarding your post-service conduct and accomplishments.  However, even in light of the Wilkie Memo and reviewing the record holistically, the Board still concluded that given the totality of the circumstances 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,