Docket No: 77-20 Ref: Signature Date Dear : This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found 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 for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 October 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. You enlisted in the Navy on 6 January 1992. On 7 January 1992, you received a warning counseling on your failure to disclose prior service disorderly conduct. On 27 January 1984, you submitted a written request for discharge for the good of the service (GOS) to avoid trial by court-martial for three specifications of unauthorized absence (UA) totaling 573 days. Prior to submitting this request, you conferred with a qualified military lawyer, at which time you were advised of your rights and warned of the probable adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge. Your request was granted and your commanding officer (CO) was directed to issue an other than honorable (OTH) discharge for the good of the service. As a result of this action, you were spared the stigma of a court-martial conviction, as well as the potential penalties of such a punitive discharge. On 7 February 1994, you were discharged. The Board considered the totality of the circumstances to determine whether relief is appropriate in the interests of justice in accordance with guidance provided by the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness.1 Accordingly, the Board considered and acknowledged that it is the custom and practice of the Navy to punish only to the extent necessary and to rehabilitate to the greatest extent possible, and to favor second chances in situations in which individuals have paid for their misdeeds; that character and rehabilitation weigh heavily in determining whether relief is appropriate; that flawless military service is not required to warrant an honorable discharge characterization; that the Board may consider your sworn testimony alone to establish the evidence of your rehabilitation and contributions to society; and that your conduct was nonviolent in nature. Among the factors considered in accordance with the above referenced guidance was that you have demonstrated significant rehabilitation as evidenced by your assertion that you have been clean and sober for the past 27 years and that you have married and are the father of three children; that you have been a productive member of society since your discharge from the Navy; and that many years have passed since the time of your misconduct. Even considering these potentially mitigating factors in accordance with the above referenced guidance, however, the Board did not find that relief was appropriate in your case. Specifically, given the fact that you were absent without leave on three separate occasions for a total of 573 days, the Board determined that the nature and circumstances of your misconduct was so severe that it outweighed all of the potentially mitigating circumstances that the Board considered. Accordingly, the Board denied your application for relief. It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken. 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, _________________________________ 1 USD Memo, Subj: Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military / Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations,” 25 July 2008.