Docket No: 6851-20 
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  
24 March 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 began a period of active service on 5 November 1990.  On 6 November 1990, you were counseled regarding your defective enlistment and induction due to fraudulent entry for your failure to disclose your preservice involvement with civil authorities.  You were notified further deficiencies may result in the initiation of administrative separation proceedings.  On 10 December 1990, you were convicted at a summary court martial (SCM) for assault.  On 23 May 1991, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for unauthorized absence (UA) for a period of 68 days. As a result of the foregoing, on 28 May 1991, 204 days after your initial entry, you were notified of the initiation of administrative separation proceedings by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense, at which point, you waived your right to consult with counsel, and review of your case by an administrative discharge board (ADB).  On 19 June 1991, the discharge authority approved and directed your discharge.  On 1 July 1991, you were discharged with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service by reason of misconduct-commission of a serious offense. 

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 your contentions that: (a) your company commander recommended your retention in the Navy; (b) you were recommended for an entry level separation; (c) you had good grades; and (d) you went UA to aide your mother. The Board noted you were notified 204 days after initial entry.  Applicable regulations authorize an entry level separation only if separation action is initiated within 180 days of continuous active service, therefore you were not eligible for an entry level separation.  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 NJP and SCM, 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,