Docket No: 4823-20 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 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 2 December 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. Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to their understanding of the issue(s) involved. Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 19 June 1978. You completed this enlistment with an honorable characterization of service on 16 June 1981 and reenlisted on 17 June 1981. You completed this enlistment as well with an honorable characterization of service on 16 June 1985. You began your third enlistment in the Navy on 4 March 1987. The record reflects that on 3 December 1987, you did not meet the criteria for access to Sensitive Compartmentalized Information (SCI) and therefore were not eligible for cryptologic duties. You subsequently were approved for conversion into the Operations Specialist (OS) rating. On 10 August 1989, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for conspiracy, being absent without leave and missing ship’s movement. As punishment, you were awarded reduction in rank (RIR) to the paygrade of E-5, forfeiture of pay and restriction and extra duty. On 11 August 1989, you received a second NJP for willful disobedience of superior commissioned officer. As punishment, you were awarded RIR to the paygrade of E-4. On 19 September 1989, you submitted a written request for administrative discharge under other than honorable (OTH) conditions in lieu of trial by court-martial. You further requested that you be administratively reduced in rank to the paygrade of E-3. You were accused of committing the following charges and specifications: 19 specifications of failure to go at the time prescribed to your appointed place of duty, two specifications of willfully disobeying a lawful command from superior commissioned officer and failure to obey a lawful order from noncommissioned officer. Prior to submitting this request, you conferred with a military lawyer at which time you were advised of your rights, and warned of the probable adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge. As part of this discharge request, you admitted your guilt to the foregoing charges and specifications, and acknowledged that your characterization of service upon discharge would be other than honorable (OTH) and your RIR would be to the paygrade of E-3. Your request for RIR to E-3 and SILT was granted, and your commanding officer was directed to reduce you to the paygrade of E-3 and issue you an OTH characterization of service for SILT. On 3 October 1989, pursuant to your request, you were discharged from the naval service with an OTH characterization of service and you were reduced to the paygrade of E-3. The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors in your case, including your desire to upgrade your discharge and reinstate your rank and rate. The Board considered your contention that you received harassment, retaliation, removed from the ship and discharged from the Navy because of a Board of Inquiry. After careful consideration, the Board did not find evidence of an error or injustice that warrants relief in your case or sufficient evidence to warrant clemency. Even under the liberal consideration standard, the Board found your misconduct that resulted in two NJPs and your subsequent discharge at your request to avoid trial by court-martial warranted an OTH characterization of service. In reviewing the circumstances of 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). Accordingly, the Board considered and acknowledged your positive contributions to the Navy, the length of your active duty service to our nation, and your post-discharge achievements. Even considering these potentially mitigating factors in accordance with the above referenced guidance, the Board did not find that relief was in the interest of justice. The Board concluded that your OTH discharge characterization was issued without error or injustice, and that corrective action is not warranted. 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,