Docket No: 3619-20 
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 that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.  Consequently, your application has been denied. 
 
A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 June 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 Navy and began a period of active duty on 3 August 2005; you continued on active duty until your discharge in August 2017.  On 21 February 2017, a domestic incident took place at the home of a female first class petty officer.  Your then-spouse confronted the first class petty officer about an alleged affair with you.  Months prior to the incident, the Command Master Chief (CMDCM) had directed you and the first class petty officer to have no contact with one another until your divorce was final.  After the February 2017 incident, the CMDCM asked you if you were present at the first class petty officer’s home when your wife arrived, and you stated you were not.  After the CMDCM received a copy of the arrest report resulting from the incident, he learned that your statement was untrue.  You were placed on report and offered nonjudicial punishment (NJP), which you refused.  You were subsequently notified of administrative separation proceeding against you on the basis of false official statement.  You elected to appear before an administrative separation board.  On 31 May 2017, an administrative separation board found by unanimous vote that you committed the misconduct of making a false official statement and recommended that you be separated with a general characterization of service.  Your counsel submitted a Letter of Deficiency, which your Commanding Officer reviewed.  The Commanding Officer found your claims to be meritless.  Your Commanding Officer concurred with the recommendation of the administrative separation board, and forwarded his recommendation that you be discharged from the Navy with a general characterization of service.  On 20 August 2017, you were discharged from the Navy on the basis of misconduct-serious offense, and received a general characterization of service and a reentry (RE) code of RE-4. 
 
You request reinstatement to active duty, back pay, entitlement to future pay, or in the alternative, an upgrade to your discharge characterization from general to honorable and a change to your RE code.  You contend that you were wrongfully separated due to gross deviations from the policy governing separations from the Navy.  You point out that you raised the issue of policy deviations in your Letter of Deficiency, but you were nonetheless punished for exercising your right to refuse NJP and wrongfully discharged.  You assert that you were subjected to the administrative separation process for a non-mandatory basis, that you were not afforded a proper board, and that one of the members was biased due to having conducted your DRB.  You contend that your Commanding Officer informed you that he would not grant you a new board, but agreed that if you accepted NJP, you would not be reduced in rank or administratively separated.  You state that your Commanding Officer later retracted this offer. 
 
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, including your contention that your separation was executed in violation of the policy governing separations, that your Commanding Officer misled you, and that your board was biased.  The Board reviewed the available records and found that a false official statement, such as that which you made to the CMDCM, qualifies as a serious offense of misconduct as defined under the MILPERSMAN.  Additionally, the Board reviewed the available records pertaining to your administrative separation proceedings and noted that the board appears to have been properly convened, its recommendation was reviewed by the Commanding Officer, and you submitted a Letter of Deficiency, which was found to be meritless.  The Board concluded that you did not provide enough evidence or information to establish your allegation of improper bias by a members of your administrative separation board.  Even noting your allegation that your Commanding Officer misled you, the Board found that he was within his authority to initiate administrative separation proceedings against you on the basis of your false official statement to the CMDCM and that he properly routed the recommendation of the administrative separation board for final action.  The Board concluded that your administrative discharge was properly executed, and that reinstatement to active duty, back pay, retired pay, future pay, or an upgrade and change to your RE-4 are not warranted. 
 
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,