Docket No: 2379-20            
Ref: Signature Date 
 

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 07 December 2020.  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 17 February 2006.  On 15 October 2008, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for a period of unauthorized absence (UA) and failure to obey a lawful order or regulation.  Your available service record indicates that you were UA from 29 July 2009 through 27 September 2009, and again from 26 to 27 December 2009.  After you refused Captain’s Mast for the period of UA, administrative separation proceeding were initiated against you.  On 21 January 2010, you received notice of your rights as associated with the administrative separation process and you waived your right to appear before an administrative separation board.  On 21 January 2010, Commanding Officer, Naval Station , forwarded your package to the separation authority recommending your administrative separation with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service.  The recommendation was approved, and you were discharged from the Navy on 10 February 2010, on the basis of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense, and received an OTH characterization of service and a reentry (RE) code of RE-4.  Following your discharge, you applied to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB).  On 28 June 2019, NDRB found your discharge proper as issued and determined that no change is warranted. 
 
In your application to the Board, you request that your OTH discharge be upgrade to either a general or honorable discharge.  You state that a senior enlisted member had a problem with you and that the senior member made disparaging remarks towards you. 
 
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, including your contention that a senior member of your chain of command targeted you unfairly.  The Board noted that although you reference the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in support of your request, your application did not include documentation or information from the VA.  The Board considered your assertions, but found that you did not provide enough evidence to overcome the NJP and the two periods of UA in 2009, which appear to have led to the administrative separation proceedings against you.  The Board concluded that based on the information reflected in your record, your two final periods of UA in 2009, were sufficient to support the issuance of the OTH characterization of service.  The Board concluded that your current discharge does not reflect an error or injustice, and that corrective action is not warranted.    
 
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 desire to upgrade your discharge and contention that you have been an outstanding member of your community, are on a first name basis with law enforcement in your area, and a member of a church.  Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief.  Specifically, the Board determined that your repeated misconduct, as evidenced by your NJP and lengthy period of UA, 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, 
1/13/2021
Executive Director