Docket No: 7068-20 
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 16 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 27 June 1989.  On 11 January 1990, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for two specifications of unauthorized absence.  On 20 March 1990, you submitted a written request for separation in lieu of trial (SILT) by court-martial for an unauthorized absence (UA) for the period from 12 January 1990 to 14 February 1990, totaling 33 days, and for 2 specifications of larceny.  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 offenses and acknowledged that your characterization of service upon discharge would be other than honorable (OTH).  Your request was granted and your commanding officer was directed to issue you an OTH characterization of service by reason of separation in lieu of trial.  On 13 April 1990, pursuant to your request, you were discharged. 
 
After careful consideration, the Board did not find evidence of an error or injustice that warrants relief in your case.  The Board also 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 to change your reentry code; your assertions that you understand what you did was wrong at the time, and you paid for it; that the situation was 30 years ago, and since then you have lived a positive life, and you do not drink nor do you do drugs or smoke.  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 NJP, and your UA that resulted in your SILT request and subsequent approval, warranted an OTH characterization of service.  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,