DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 0295-20 Ref: Signature Date This is in reference to your application 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 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 28 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, together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of your naval record, as well as applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance, with or without counsel, would not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the Board determined 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 15 March 1990. On 16 April 1992, you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) for violating Articles 121 (larceny) and 130 (unlawful entry) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). You were sentenced to forfeiture of pay, confinement, and reduction in rank. On 11 April 1994, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for larceny and were awarded forfeiture of pay, restriction, and reduction in rank. The forfeiture and reduction were suspended for six months. On 19 December 1994, you were counseled regarding abusing the limited duty status you were granted in order to assist your family, and you were directed to Drug and Alcohol Program screening. On 24 January 1995, a physician determined you were alcohol dependent and recommended inpatient rehabilitation treatment. On 1 February 1995, you began a period of unauthorized absence (UA) that continued until you were apprehended on 27 February 1995. Later that day, you were given a urinalysis test, and subsequently, you tested positive for cocaine use. On 5 May 1995, you received a second NJP for UA and were awarded forfeiture of pay, restriction, extra duties, and reduction in rank. All punishments were suspended for six months. On 15 May 1995, administrative discharge action was initiated. After consulting with Counsel, you elected to have a hearing before an administrative discharge board (ADB). On 8 June 1995, your spouse was informed by the City of of the completed investigation into the sexual assault allegations she made against a police officer. The investigation determined there was sufficient evidence to prove the acts complained of did not occur as alleged. On 18 October 1995, an ADB voted unanimously that you committed misconduct (drug abuse) and recommended separation under other than honorable (OTH) conditions. On 15 March 1996, you were discharged with an OTH characterization of service. You request the Board upgrade your discharge to honorable. You assert you were separated after a single drug use. You claim you went UA in search of an unknown assailant who assaulted your spouse. While UA, you drank and used cocaine for the first time. Three weeks later, you surrendered and tested positive for cocaine use. You state you are 54 years old and pursuing a degree to further your employability. The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your record of service and contentions and concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change to your discharge given your misconduct that, including drug abuse, resulted in two NJPs and a SPCM. The Board noted that you provided no evidence to support your contentions. Absent such evidence, the Board relied upon the presumption of regularity and presumed that the officials acted in accordance with governing law/policy and in good faith. Lastly, there is no provision of law or in Navy regulations that allows for an upgrade in the characterization of service due solely to the passage of time. 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. Sincerely, 6/5/2020