Docket No: 3010-20 
Ref: Signature Date           

  
Dear : 
 
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 you did not file your application 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 for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 September 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, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 
 
You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 26 March1996.  On 26 November 1996, you began a period of unauthorized absence (UA) that continued until you surrendered on 29 November 1996.  On 23 January 1997, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for UA and were awarded restriction and extra duties for 14 days, and forfeiture of pay (FOP) which was suspended for six months.  You were UA again on 7 February 1997 and from 29 April until 27 May 1997.  On 25 June 1995, you were convicted by summary court-martial (SUM) for violating Articles 86 (UA), 87 (missing ship movement), and 91 (disobeying a lawful order by refusing to take your semi-annual physical readiness test) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  You were sentenced to FOP, confinement for 30 days, and reduction in rank to E-1.  On 24 July 1997, administrative discharge action was initiated by misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.  After being afforded all of your procedural rights, you waived them, and your case was forwarded to the separation authority for review.  Your commanding officer recommended that you receive an under other than honorable (OTH) conditions discharge and the separation authority approved your separation from the Navy.  On 27 September 1997, you were discharged with an OTH characterization of service 
 
You have requested that the Board upgrade your discharge; however, you did not specify the characterization of service you are requesting.  You assert that when you went UA you were experiencing family issues and did not know how to handle them properly, and that you were homesick and missed your daughter who was born the year before you entered active duty.  In your application, you contend that you did not give yourself the proper amount of time to heal and bond with your daughter before entering the Navy and that you were suffering from post-partum depression.  You also noted that you couldn’t handle your parents splitting up, that you were young and weren’t “thinking right.” 
 
The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your record of service and contentions, and concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change to your discharge given your misconduct.  With respect to your contention that you were suffering from post-partum depression at the time of your misconduct, the Board noted that you provided no evidence to support your contention and nothing in your record supports this assertion.  The Board noted that on your Record of Medical History dated 27 July 1997, Block 8 you wrote:  “Good Health, No Medications.”  In Block 11, in response to the question “Have you ever had or do you now have any of the following” you checked “No” next to “Depression.”   
Absent of 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 recharacterization 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 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,