DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 

Docket No: 1040-16 
FEB O5 2017 

Dear : 

This is in reference to your application for correction ofyour naval record pursuant to the 
provisions oftitle 10, United States Code, section 1552. 

Although your application was not filed in a timely manner, the Board found it in the interest of 
justice to waive the statute oflimitations and consider your application on its merits. 

A three-member panel ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 17 November 2016. The names and votes ofthe members ofthe 
panel will be furnished upon request. Your allegations oferror and injustice were reviewed in 
accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings ofthis 
Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with 
all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and 
policies. 

After careful and conscientious consideration ofthe entire record, the Board found the evidence 
submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. 

You enlisted in the Navy, began a period ofactive duty on 2 September 1988, and served five 
months without disciplinary incident. On 27 January 1989, you received nonjudicial punishment 
(NJP) for.failure to obey a written order. Between 24 July and 26 July 1990, you received written 
counseling on three occasions for unauthorized absences (UA) from your appointed place ofduty. 
On 16 November 1990, you were convicted by Summary Court-Martial for a three-hour UA, three 
specifications of failure to obey an order, and violation ofArticle 134 ofthe Uniform Code of 
Military Justice. 

Subsequently, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to 
commission ofa serious offense. After you waived your procedural rights, your commanding officer 
recommended discharge under other than honorable (OTH) conditions by reason ofmisconduct. 
The discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed separation under other than 
honorable conditions by reason ofmisconduct. On 9 January 1991, you were so discharged. 

The Board, in its review ofyour entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially 
mitigating factors, your desire to upgrade your discharge, and your contention you were wrongfully 
discharged due to a medical error. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not 
sufficient to warrant relief in your case given your misconduct. The Board noted that the record 
shows you were notified of and waived your procedural right to present your case to an 
administrative board (ADB). In doing so, you gave up your first and best opportunity to advocate 
for retention or a more favorable characterization ofservice. Lastly, the Board noted that there is no 
evidence in your record, and you submitted none, to support your contention that you were 
wrongfully discharged. Accordingly, your application has been denied. 

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable actiun cannot be taken. 
You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and material 
evidence within one year from the date ofthe Board's decision. New evidence is evidence not 
previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in your case. In this regard, it is 
important to keep in mind that a presumption ofregularity 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 ofprobable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 


Executive Director