DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 7995-20 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, 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 accepted a direct appointment as an ensign in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps on 10 April 1980. You reported aboard Naval Legal Service Office, on 23 November 1981. You received your first fitness report covering the brief period through 31 December 1981, which was overall positive, explaining that you showed “considerable promise for development as a judge advocate.” Next, however, you received nonjudicial punishment on 10 March 1982, which related to your actions that occurred on 3 March 1982. Those actions included disrespecting the commanding officer of a local command, failing to obey the direct order of your commanding officer, and being drunk and disorderly while you were in a public bar in , . You were issued a letter of reprimand for these violations. Next, you were in an unauthorized absence status from 17 March 1982 to 21 March 1982, due to the fact that you had been arrested by police and you were in jail. It was later determined that you had called your command and made a false statement that you were away from work due to being sick. On 24 March 1982, you were arrested for driving while intoxicated. You made bail and Naval Air Station, personnel picked you up from the and took you directly to the Alcohol Recovery Service (ARS). You were discharged from ARS on 10 May 1982. Your command drafted legal charges against you, which included four instances of unauthorized absence, six instances of disobeying orders, conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, and missing restriction. In response to these charges, on 20 July 1982, you submitted a resignation for the good of the service and to escape trial by court-martial. Your resignation was accepted, and you were discharged on 24 September 1982, with an other than honor characterization of service. In 1991, you petitioned the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB), asserting that your discharge characterization was inequitable because you had an undiagnosed condition, that the discharge was based on isolated events that occurred in March 1982, and that you have led an exemplary life since the date of your discharge. The NDRB denied your petition, finding that you were fully responsible for your actions, and that your service was accurately reflected as other than honorable. The Board carefully considered your contentions in your current petition. You contended that your command at the time did not handle your case properly, and that after you received alcohol treatment, you were found fit for duty. Instead of putting you back to duty, your command brought charges against you, and on the advice of counsel, you resigned your commission. You also assert you are deserving of clemency based on the fact that you are a recovering alcoholic with over sixteen years of sobriety. You included documents relating to your recovery and letters of support. Based upon its review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief. The Board did not find any irregularity in the course of action that your command chose to take at the time of the events and thus did not grant relief based on this contention. With respect to your post-service activities, the Board commended you on your success with respect to substance use. However, the Board determined that it did not have sufficient material supportive of clemency in order to grant relief on the basis of clemency. 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, Executive Director