Docket No: 7178-20 
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 8 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, 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). 
 
On 17 June 1981, you reenlisted in the Navy after over six years of satisfactory service.   On 16 November 1981, you completed alcohol rehabilitation treatment and acknowledged a counseling entry advising you that returning to drinking will result in processing for administrative separation.  On 18 August 1983, you were in an unauthorized absence (UA) status from your unit until 19 August 1983 when you were apprehended by civilian authorities and subsequently returned to military control.  On an unknown date, you pled guilty in civilian court to driving under the influence (DUI) and received a sentence of 50 hours of community service, license revocation for 6 months, and a $281.00 fine.  On 2 October 1984, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for being UA from your appointed place of duty.  Subsequently, you acknowledged a 6105 counseling entry notifying you of your retention in the Naval Service and advising you that further deficiencies in your performance and/or conduct may result in disciplinary action and in processing for administrative separation.  On 19 December 1984, you received NJP for dereliction in the performance of duties, being drunk on duty, sleeping on watch, being incapacitated in the performance of duties, and removing with intent to conceal a portion of an official record.  On 17 January 1985, you were notified of pending administrative separation by reason of misconduct, specifically due to a pattern of misconduct, at which point, you did not elect to consult with counsel and waived your procedural rights.  On 23 January 1985, your commanding officer recommended discharge by reason of misconduct with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service.  On 11 February 1985, you were evaluated by a medical officer and it was determined that you were not alcohol dependent.  On 1 March 1985, the discharge authority directed your discharge with an OTH characterization of service by reason of misconduct, specifically a pattern of misconduct.  On 6 March 1985, you were discharged with an OTH characterization of service.    
 
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 based on your contention the discharge has been over 20 years and “warrants” an upgrade, and your statement to have discovered in 1990 that your command said you took documents; however, you claim that never happened.  The Board noted you did not submit advocacy letters or documentation to support your claim to be considered for clemency.  Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief.  Specifically, the Board determined that your pattern of misconduct, as evidenced by your two NJP’s and civilian conviction for DUI, 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 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 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,