DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 

Docket No: 4612-20          
Ref: Signature date 


This is in reference to your application for correction of the naval record of your client, , pursuant to Section 1552 of Title 10, United States Code.  After careful and 
conscientious consideration of relevant portions of his naval record and 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, the application has been denied. 

Although the 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 the application on its merits.  A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 January 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, including the 25 July 2018 guidance from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness regarding equity, injustice or clemency determinations (Wilkie Memo). 
You client enlisted in the Navy on 6 May 1992.  On 26 February 1993, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for a period of unauthorized absence (UA).  On 25 October 1993, you received NJP for using marijuana.  On 25 October 1993, you were also informed of the initiation of administrative discharge processing and, as you noted in your petition, you waived your right to an administrative discharge board.  On 5 November 1993, you were discharged with an other than honorable 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 contentions that had you not waived your right to administrative discharge board, you would likely have received no worse than a general discharge, that you were forthright during the command’s investigation, that despite your misconduct you had been a tremendous asset to the Navy, and that your discharge characterization has made it difficult to maintain employment and contacts within the community.  More specifically, you contend that you were only 21 years old and your command made it sound as if you had no point in getting an attorney due to the Navy’s zero tolerance policy, and that you waived your rights without even consulting an attorney. 

Concerning your post-service accomplishments, you state that you have worked successfully at your father’s company, obtained a bachelor’s degree, and have a job as a project control manager. You further assert that you are recognized in the community for your personal character, your excellence as a neighbor, your confidence, and you are a great family man.  Based upon its review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief.  Specifically, the Board did not agree with your assertion that it is likely that had you not waived your right to an administrative board it was likely you would have received no worse than a general discharge, inasmuch as it is remote in time and circumstances to make such a prediction.  Rather, the Board determined that your misconduct, as evidenced by an NJP for UA and a second one for use of marijuana, outweighed these mitigating factors.  Further, the Board commended you for your post-service accomplishments, yet determined there was not enough evidence to merit relief.  Accordingly, given the totality of the circumstances, the Board determined that the request does not merit relief. 
 
You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new matters, which will require him 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, 

Executive Direcor