Docket No: 6079-20 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 1 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). You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 12 October 1988. On 5 December and 28 April 1990, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for three periods of unauthorized absence (UA) totaling nine days, two specifications of disorderly conduct, disrespect towards a petty officer, and communicating a threat. On 26 December 1990, you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of larceny and assault. On 23 January 1991, you were notified of administrative discharge action by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and due to a pattern of misconduct. After being afforded your procedural rights, you elected to have your case heard before an administrative discharge board (ADB). On 1 March 1991, the ADB convened and recommend that you receive an other than honorable (OTH) discharge due to misconduct. However, the ABD recommended that your OTH discharge be suspended for a period of 12 months. On 4 March 1991, your commanding officer (CO) forwarded your case to the separation authority concurring with the ADB’s findings and recommendation. On 17 April 1991, the separation authority determined that you should be separated from the Navy with an OTH discharge due to a pattern of misconduct. However, directed that the execution of such discharge be held in abeyance by your CO pending further observation of your conduct. On 26 June 1991, you received NJP for unlawfully striking another Sailor in the face with your fist. On 28 June 1991, your CO forwarded a request to the separation authority to vacate your suspended OTH and discharge you from the Navy due to your continued misconduct. On 1 September 1991, you were transferred to the local Transient Personnel Unit (TPU) for administrative discharge processing. On 15 July 1991, the TPU notified you that your suspended OTH discharge was being vacated due to your continued misconduct. At that time, you elected to submit a statement on your behalf. On 7 August 1991, your case was forwarded to the separation authority strongly recommending that your suspended OTH discharge be vacated, and that you be discharged from the Navy. On 26 August 1991, the separation authority approved your CO’s request to vacate your suspended OTH discharge. However, before your discharge could be executed, you began a period of UA on 3 September 1991 that lasted 464 days, ending when you were discharged in absentia on 10 December 1992. 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 belief that your actions were totally wrong, you were a scared young man in a very different time in the Navy, that you believe your punishment was harsh, and that you learned to accept accountability. Additionally toe Board considered your two letters of recommendation as well as your contention that you have become a man of great character since your discharge. Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief. Specifically, the Board determined that your repeated misconduct, as evidenced by your three NJP, SCM conviction, and the fact that you were given an opportunity for retention and to earn a better characterization of service when your OTH discharge was held in abeyance for 12 months, 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,