Docket No: 2738-20
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 29 January 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).     
 
The Board determined that your personal appearance, with or without counsel, would 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. 
 
You initially enlisted in the Navy on 16 October 1989 and reenlisted on 16 March 1995.  On 16 April 1996 you were issued a “Page 13” warning documenting your failure to maintain sufficient checking account funds, financial irresponsibility, and severe indebtedness.  The Page 13 warned you that any further deficiencies in your performance and or conduct may result in disciplinary action and in processing for administrative separation.  On 6 May 1996 you received non-judicial punishment for two specifications of unauthorized absence (UA).  On 8 May 1996 your advancement recommendation was withdrawn due to your substandard performance and conduct. 
 
On 10 May 1996 you submitted to your command a statement of your financial status and current indebtedness.  Such statement indicated that your total commercial indebtedness remaining balance was approximately $25,000 to six different creditors.  You indicated that for each of the creditors you were behind in your payments between one and four months, depending on the debt. 
 
On 16 May 1996 your command initiated administrative discharge proceedings by reason of misconduct due to a set pattern of a failure to pay just debts.  You elected your rights to consult with counsel and include a written statement, but waived your right to present your case to an administrative separation board.  Your election of rights was a standard Navy form and witnessed by a Navy Judge Advocate.  Your Commanding Officer (CO) recommended that you receive a general (under honorable conditions) (GEN) characterization of service.  In his endorsement, your CO noted: 
 
Petty Officer [B] was afforded every opportunity through effective leadership, counseling, and guidance to square away his financial problems.  Petty Officer [B] has yet to accept responsibility as a mature sailor for any of his actions.  Petty Officer [B]’s performance has been average, but his financial irresponsibility seriously outweighs his performance.  Therefore, Petty Officer [B] is no longer suited for further useful military service, and it is recommended that he receive a general discharge under honorable conditions. 
 
Ultimately, on 21 June 1996 you were discharged with a GEN characterization of service.  On 22 May 2019 the Board denied your initial petition for relief. 
 
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) your discharge was based on minor incidents and the command did not follow proper procedures; (b) your overall service was honorable and should be upgraded; (c) your discharge was racked with numerous errors and requires that the Board upgrade your discharge; (d) you were never afforded an opportunity to overcome your deficiency; (e) your characterization was unfair and unjust under the circumstances especially when balancing your over six years of service; and (f ) you were never given an opportunity to consult with an attorney and were unaware what the ramifications were of the separation paperwork you were signing.  Based upon this review, however, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief. 
 
Specifically, the Board determined that your Navy service records and DD Form 214 maintained by the Department of the Navy (DoN) contain no known errors.  The Board did not believe that your record was otherwise so meritorious to deserve a discharge upgrade, and the Board determined that Sailors should receive no higher discharge characterization than is due.  The Board believed that, even though flawless service is not required for an honorable discharge, in this case a GEN discharge is appropriate.  The Board determined that significant negative aspects of your conduct or performance far outweighed any positive aspects of your overall military record and that you merit a GEN characterization of service and no higher.  Moreover, absent a material error or injustice, the Board generally will not summarily make changes to service records solely for the purpose of facilitating VA benefits, or enhancing educational or employment opportunities.  Lastly, even in light of the Wilkie Memo and reviewing the record holistically and given the totality of the circumstances, the Board determined that your request does not merit relief.  Accordingly, the Board concluded that you received the correct discharge characterization based on your overall circumstances and that such characterization was in accordance with all DoN directives and policy at the time of your discharge. 
 
The Board also concluded that there were no due process irregularities with your separation processing.  You were properly notified of the proposed administrative board action and provided with all of your rights in writing.  You signed an acknowledgement that you received such notification on 16 May 1996.  Subsequently, contrary to your contentions, on 20 May 1996 you consulted with a Navy Judge Advocate (counsel) and you elected or waived in writing certain rights from a comprehensive list regarding your proposed separation.  Your counsel witnessed your signature to this election of rights form.       
 
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,