DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 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 case on its merits. A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 September 2021. 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, applicable statutes, regulations, and policies to include the 2018 Under Secretary of Defense Memo on Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military / Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations (Wilkie Memo). A review of your record shows that you entered active duty with the Navy in February 2001. On 9 October 2001, non-judicial punishment was imposed on you for unauthorized absence and missing ship’s movement. Part of your forfeitures were suspended for a period of six month. However, on 14 December 2001, the suspended portion of your Oct 2001 non-judicial punishment was vacated due to continued misconduct. Non-judicial punishment was again imposed on you on 2 November 2002 for another unauthorized absence. Finally, after an orders violation, you were punished with a third non-judicial punishment on 19 November 2002 prior to your discharge for misconduct with an Other than Honorable characterization of service. You were assigned a trait average of 1.83 on your final separation evaluation. The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve a disability discharge and upgrade to your characterization of service to Honorable. You assert the Navy failed to properly treat your motor vehicle accident injury while you were on active duty resulting in two operations post-discharge. Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief. In order to qualify for military disability benefits through the Disability Evaluation System with a finding of unfitness, a service member must be unable to perform the duties of their office, grade, rank or rating as a result of a qualifying disability condition. Alternatively, a member may be found unfit if their disability represents a decided medical risk to the health or the member or to the welfare or safety of other members; or the member’s disability imposes unreasonable requirements on the military to maintain or protect the member. In reviewing the evidence in your case, the Board found no evidence to support a finding that you met any of the criteria for unfitness. More importantly, the Board noted that you were ineligible for disability processing based on your misconduct based administrative separation that resulted in an Other than Honorable characterization of service. Therefore, regardless of whether you were unfit at the time of your discharge, the Board concluded the preponderance of the evidence supports your discharge for misconduct. Regarding your request for an upgrade of your characterization of service, the Board determined the preponderance of the evidence does not support relief. In the Board’s opinion, your documented history of misconduct supports an Other than Honorable characterization of service since your conduct was a significant departure from conduct expected from a Sailor. Specifically, the Board considered the fact your missing ship’s movement misconduct qualifies for a punitive discharge under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and that you committed four specifications of misconduct during a relatively brief period of active duty service. These factors, when weighed with your poor performance during your enlistment, led the Board to concluded your characterization of service remains appropriate. Finally, the Board considered whether clemency was appropriate in your case and determined the mitigation evidence you presented did not merit an upgrade to your characterization of service after weighing the seriousness of your offenses against your assertions of injustice. Accordingly, the Board found insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant a change to your record. 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, 9/17/2021 Deputy Director