Docket No: 3397-20 
Ref: Signature Date 
 

Dear : 
 
This letter 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 that 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 18 November 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. 
 
You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 7 January 1998.  On 26 August 1998, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for resisting apprehension, provoking speeches and/or gestures, assault upon a person in the execution of law enforcement duties, and possession of an unauthorized identification card.  On 31 October 1998, you received your second NJP for misbehavior of sentinel or lookout.   
 
Unfortunately, your administrative separation documentation is not in your service record.  However, based on your Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214), you were discharged on 9 December 1998, with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service by reason of misconduct due to pattern of misconduct.  
 
The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors in your case, including your desire to upgrade your discharge.  The Board considered your contentions that your discharge was extreme; and you believe there could have been other things that could have happened in order for you to be reprimanded.  
 
After careful consideration of your contentions, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case due to the seriousness of your repeated misconduct that resulted in two NJPs.  Additionally, the Board did not find evidence of an error or injustice or sufficient evidence to warrant clemency.  The Board relies on a presumption of regularity to support the official actions of public officers and, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary (as is the case at present), will presume that they have properly discharged their official duties.  Unfortunately, under the totality of the circumstances, the Board discerned no probable material error or injustice in the discharge. 
 
In reviewing your separation and characterization of service, the Board considered the totality of the circumstances to determine whether relief is appropriate today in the interests of justice in accordance with guidance provided by the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (Wilkie Memo of 25 July 2018).    However, even in light of the USD Memo, the Board still concluded given the totality of the circumstances, your request does not merit relief. 
 
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken at this time.  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,