Docket No: 779-20 
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 you did not file your application in a timely manner, the statute of limitation was waived in accordance with the 25 August 2017 guidance from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (Kurta Memo).  A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 November 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 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, to include the Kurta Memo and 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 10 December 1991.  On 9 December 1992, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for three specifications of absence from appointed place of duty and failure to complete the command Navy Alcohol Dependency Substance Abuse Program (NADSAP).  As a result, you were required to successfully complete Level III Alcohol Rehabilitation.  On 9 December 1993, you received an additional NJP for absence from appointed place of duty, disrespect in language, disrespect in deportment, failure to obey a lawful order, wrongful use of marijuana, and assault.  Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.  After you waived your rights, your commanding officer recommended an other than honorable (OTH) discharge by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.  The discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed an OTH discharge due to misconduct.  On 18 March 1994, you were discharged.  
 
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 contentions that you had a problem with alcohol, never received treatment, alcohol eventually led you to using marijuana, and you served in the Air National Guard prior to serving in the Navy.  Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief.  The Board noted that the record contains documentation which is contrary to your contentions.  On 9 December 1992, you received NJP for failure to complete the command NADSAP due to sleeping in class and non-participation which resulted in your requirement to successfully complete Level III Alcohol Rehabilitation.  Specifically, the Board determined that your misconduct, as evidenced by your two NJPs and administrative processing, 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,