Docket No: 5242-20 
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 9 December 2020.  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 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 2 June 1993.  During the period from 24 September 1993 to 8 April 1994, you received four administrative remarks (Page 13) counseling entries concerning deficiencies in your performance and corrective action.  On 22 April 1994, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for dereliction of duty.  Following your NJP, you received a Page 13 counseling entry regarding your misconduct, and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative separation.  During the period from 30 June 1994 to 18 September 1994, you received four additional Page 13 counseling entries concerning deficiencies in your performance.  On 10 October 1994, you received your second NJP for being absent from your appointed place of duty.  On 13 April 1995, you received your third NJP for wrongful possession of a Ruger 9mm pistol with one magazine and two boxes of ammunition, two specifications of unauthorized absence, and six specifications of false official statement. 
 
Subsequently, on 20 April 1995, you were notified that you were being recommended for administrative discharge from the naval service because of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and pattern of misconduct.  You were advised of, and waived, your procedural rights, including your right to consult with and be represented by military counsel, and your right to present your case to an administrative discharge board.  Your commanding officer recommended administrative discharge from the naval service with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service.  The separation authority approved the recommendation and directed that you be separated from the naval service with an OTH characterization of service.  On 1 June 1995, you were so discharged. 
 
You requested that your OTH discharge be upgraded to Honorable.  You contend you were abiding by Virginia state law regarding weapons possession when you were pulled over for a traffic stop on base and charged.  You further contend the base commander did not have you indoctrinated until a week after you were charged and at the time of the offense you were unaware of base regulations pertaining to weapons possession. 
 
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 you were abiding by state law.  Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief.  Specifically, the Board determined that your misconduct, as evidenced by your multiple Page 13 counseling entries, three NJPs, and administrative discharge, 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,