DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 7360-20 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 25 June 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 on 11 September 1984. Your pre-enlistment physical examination on 2 December 1983 and self-reported medical history noted no neurologic or psychiatric conditions or symptoms. On 3 October 1985 you received non-judicial punishment for four separate specifications of unauthorized absence (UA) and four specifications of making a false official statement. Prior to your NJP you consulted with an attorney. On 16 October 1985 were issued a “Page 13” counseling warning (Page 13) documenting your NJP. The Page 13 expressly warned you that any further deficiencies in your performance and/or conduct may result in disciplinary action and in processing for an administrative separation. You did not make a Page 13 rebuttal statement. On 3 July 1986 you were convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol (DWI) in On 14 July 1986 you received NJP for UA and DWI. You did not appeal your NJP. On 12 August 1986 you received a Page 13 documenting your second NJP. The Page 13 expressly warned you that any further deficiencies in your performance and/or conduct may result in disciplinary action and in processing for an administrative separation. You did not make a Page 13 rebuttal statement On 18 August 1986 you received NJP for conspiracy to commit an offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, failure to obey a written lawful order, and consuming alcohol while in a duty status. You did not appeal your NJP. On 11 September 1986 you received NJP for failing to obey a lawful general order, false official statement, and breaking restriction. You did not appeal your NJP. On 19 September 1986 you were notified of administrative separation proceedings by reason of: (a)misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct, (b) misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense, and (c) misconduct due to a civilian conviction. You expressly waived in writing your rights to consult with counsel, submit written rebuttal statements, and to request an administrative separation board. Ultimately, you were discharged from the Navy for a pattern of misconduct with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service and assigned an RE­4 reentry code. 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: (a) you were not UA, (b) you did not falsify any documents, (c) you did not steal any calling card and were never given a chance to refute, (d) at no time were you told that you had the right to legal representation, (f) you left to support your girlfriend who was in premature labor, and (g) you have lived an honorable life after the military. However, even in light of the Wilkie Memo and reviewing the record holistically, the Board still concluded that given the totality of the circumstances your request does not merit relief. The Board unequivocally did not believe that your record was otherwise so meritorious to deserve an upgrade. Additionally, the Board determined that Sailors should receive no higher discharge characterization than is due. The Board concluded that significant negative aspects of your conduct and/or performance greatly outweighed any positive aspects of your military record. The Board also determined that your misconduct constituted a significant departure from the conduct expected of a Sailor and that the record clearly reflected your misconduct was intentional and willful and indicated you were unfit for further service. Moreover, the Board noted that the evidence of record did not demonstrate that you were not mentally responsible for your conduct or that you should not otherwise be held accountable for your actions. The Board determined that you did not provide convincing evidence to substantiate or corroborate any of your contentions. The Board noted that you did not appeal any of your four (4) NJPs. If you believed you did not commit your NJP offenses, you could have provided exculpatory evidence at each NJP hearing, and you also had the absolute right to appeal your NJP to higher authority and subsequently provide new and/or additional evidence to refute the government’s case. Instead, the Board determined that you were presumably found guilty of all charged NJP offenses because you were indeed guilty, and the Board was not willing to re-litigate well-settled facts from over thirty-four years ago that are no longer in dispute absent any reliable evidence to the contrary. The Board also noted, contrary to your contention, that you were expressly informed in writing on 19 September 1996 you had the right to consult with counsel prior to electing or waiving any of the afforded rights in connection with your administrative separation. Additionally, the Board observed that character of military service is based, in part, on conduct and overall trait averages which are computed from marks assigned during periodic evaluations. Your overall active duty trait average in conduct was 2.75. Navy regulations in place at the time of your discharge required a minimum trait average of 3.0 in conduct (proper military behavior), for a fully honorable characterization of service. The Board concluded that your conduct marks during your active duty career were a direct result of your pattern of serious misconduct which further justified your OTH characterization of discharge and RE-4 reentry code. Accordingly, the Board determined that there was no impropriety or inequity in your discharge, and concluded that your pattern of misconduct and disregard for good order and discipline clearly merited your OTH. In the end, the Board concluded that you received the correct discharge characterization and reentry code based on the totality of your circumstances, and that such action was in accordance with all Department of the Navy directives and policy at the time of your discharge. 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, 7/2/2021 Executive Director