Docket No: 4021-20 
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 10 February 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 a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. 
 
You enlisted in the Navy on 6 January 2000.  On 3 August 2000, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for four instances of failure to obey an order or regulation.  On 31 August 2000, you received a second NJP for four instances of failure to obey an order and for disobeying a petty officer.  Between 6 March 2001 and 14 March 2002, you were counseled on three different occasions for misconduct which included being in the barracks during working hours, failing to report to company spaces after being dropped from a training class, assault, unauthorized absence (UA) from duty, and disobeying an order.  On 1 May 2002, you received a third NJP for damage to government property and fleeing the scene of an accident.  On 4 October 2002, you received a fourth NJP for a single-day UA and violation of lawful orders by not utilizing the liberty log and possessing a privately owned vehicle that was not properly registered with the command.  Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.  After you waived your procedural rights, your commanding officer recommended discharge by reason of misconduct due to pattern of misconduct with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service.  The discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and directed discharge with an OTH characterization of service by reason of misconduct due to pattern of misconduct.  On 20 November 2002, you were discharged with an OTH characterization of service.   
 
The Board carefully reviewed your application, weighed all potentially mitigating factors, and considered your explanation of the events that led to your discharge.  Specifically, the Board considered your statement that the record was unjust and you were discharged in error because you “did everything correctly” when you rented a car and brought it on base.  The Board noted your explanation only references one of the NJPs you received and further noted that you did not did not submit any advocacy letters or post-service documents to be considered for clemency purposes.  Even applying liberal consideration, the Board determined there was insufficient evidence of an error or injustice that warrants an upgrade to your characterization of service. 
 
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 desire to upgrade your discharge and contention that your in-service and post-service records warrant a correction.  Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief.  Specifically, the Board determined that your pattern of misconduct outweighed these mitigating factors.  Accordingly, given the totality of the circumstances, the Board determined that your request does not merit relief.   
 
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,