DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

Docket No: 108-16 

Dear : 
This is in reference to your application for correction ofyour naval record pursuant to the 
provisions oftitle 10 ofthe 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 of limitations and consider your application on its merits. A threemember 
panel of the Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 26 August 2016. The names and votes ofthe members ofthe 
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 ofyour 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 and began a period of active duty on 16 May 1989. You served without 
disciplinary incident until 1 March 1990, when you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for 
failure to obey a lawful order and an unauthorized pass offense. On 15 March 1990, you were 
diagnosed with a severe, longstanding personality disorder that existed prior to entry into military 
service. The professional opinion of the clinical psychologist who evaluated you stated that your 
condition rendered you incapable of serving adequately in the Navy. Therefore, you were 
counseled and notified ofyour deficiencies and advised of recommended corrective action and 
available assistance. You were warned that failure to adhere to the counseling/warning may be 
grounds for administrative separation action. During the period from 3 October 1990 to 
4 May 1992, you incurred five additional NJPs for disrespect, failure to obey a lawful order, 
provoking speech and gestures, two periods of unauthorized absence (UA), two specifications of 
insubordinate conduct, and going from your appointed place of duty. You also received two 
additional retention warnings, notifying you ofyour deficiencies and advising you of 
recommended corrective action and available assistance. You were again warned that failure to 
adhere to the counseling/warning may be grounds for administrative separation action. In view of 
the foregoing, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason ofmisconduct. You were 
advised ofyour rights and elected to waive your right to consult counsel and to present your case 
to an administrative discharge board (ADB), your commanding officer recommended an other 
than honorable (OTH) discharge and forwarded your case. The discharge authority concurred 
with the recommendation and directed an OTH discharge by reason ofmisconduct as evidenced 
by a pattern ofmisconduct. On 2 July 1992, you were so discharged. 

The Board, in its review ofyour entire record and application, carefully considered your desire to 
upgrade your discharge. The Board also considered your contention that your signature on the 
Administrative Remarks page was forged. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were 
not sufficient to warrant recharacterization ofyour discharge, given the seriousness ofyour 
misconduct which resulted in six NJPs. Further, the Board noted that you were issued three 
retention/warnings within a nine-month period oftime. These counseling/warnings afforded you 
the opportunity to overcome your deficiencies and continue your military service, yet you 
continued to commit misconduct. Further, the Board noted that the record shows that you were 
notified ofand waived your procedural right to present your case to an ADB. In doing so, you 
gave up your best opportunity to advocate for retention or a more favorable characterization of 
service. With regard to your contention, there is no evidence in the record, and you provided 
none, that your signature was forged, or that you were never issued any ofthe three 
retention/warnings documented on the Administrative Remarks page ofyour official military 
personnel file. Accordingly, your application has been denied. 

It is regretted that the circumstances ofyour case are such that favorable action cannot be taken. 
You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission ofnew 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 ofan official naval record, the burden is on the 
applicant to demonstrate the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. 



Executive Director