DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
              
Docket No: 680-20               
Ref: Signature Date 

This letter is in reference to your reconsideration request dated 28 January 2020.  You previously petitioned the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) and were advised that your application had been disapproved.  Your case was reconsidered in accordance with Board procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Sec’y of the Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that 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 March 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 its 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 26 January 1978.  You received non-judicial punishment (NJP) on 15 September 1978 for six days of unauthorized absence. On 18 March 1980, after consulting with counsel, you submitted a written request for discharge for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial for eight specifications of unauthorized absence (totaling 432 days).  Your request was approved on 8 April 1980.  On 14 April 1980, you were separated from the Navy for the good of the service and received an other than honorable characterization of service and a reentry (RE) code of RE-4. 

In your application for reconsideration, you request an upgrade to your other than honorable discharge.  You provide personal letters to the Board and contend that your discharge from the Navy was approved by the Admiral to clear the brig and base because of overcrowding. 

The Board, in its review of your entire application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, including your contentions that the your other than honorable discharge was issued because of overcrowding in the brig and base.  The Board noted that you consulted with counsel prior to requesting an other than honorable discharge to avoid facing court-martial proceedings for UAs totaling 432 days.  The Board determined that the information you provided in your application did not overcome the misconduct for which you requested an administrative discharge.  The Board determined that the other than honorable characterization of service is appropriate and does not merit corrective action. 

It is regretted that the circumstances of your reconsideration petition are such that favorable action cannot be taken.  You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the 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 the absence of new matters for reconsideration, the decision of the Board is final, and your only recourse would be to seek relief, at no cost to the Board, from a court of appropriate jurisdiction.  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, 

3/27/2020