Docket No: 0811-20 
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, sitting in executive session, considered your application on  
28 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. 
 
Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to their understanding of the issue(s) involved.  Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. 
 
You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 4 March 1999.  On 29 August 2001, you submitted a written request for separation in lieu of trial (SILT) by court-martial for an unauthorized absence (UA) for the period from 30 September 1999 to 29 August 2001, totaling 689 days.  The record reflects that you waived your right to confer with a military lawyer concerning your request for SILT.  As part of this discharge request, you admitted your guilt to the period of UA.  You acknowledged that you understood the consequences and the loss of benefits resulting from an other than honorable (OTH) discharge.  Your request was granted and your commanding officer was directed to discharge you by reason of separation in lieu of trial, with an OTH characterization of service.  On 27 September 2001, pursuant to your request, you were so discharged. 
 
The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors in your case, including your desire to upgrade your discharge and to change your reentry code.  The Board considered your contention that your discharge was “handled unjustly” which resulted in an error in your character of separation.  You state that you enlisted in the Navy for the job rating Data Systems Technician (DS), but you were told that the job rating discontinued.  You chose another career field, and after graduating from your Accession School (A School), you did research and discovered that you were given misleading information about the DS rating.  You assert that after learning of this information, you spoke with an attorney about your case, and with the attorney’s advisement, you commenced a period of UA.  You further assert that while you were UA, your attorney and the “JAG” continued to correspond.   
 
The Board noted that you provided no evidence to support your contentions, and after careful consideration, the Board did not find evidence of an error or injustice that warrants relief in your case or sufficient evidence to warrant clemency.  Even under the liberal consideration standard, the Board found your misconduct that resulted in your subsequent discharge at your request to avoid trial by court-martial warranted an OTH characterization of service.  
 
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,