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

Docket No. 1349-16 
JAN 25 2017 

Dear : 

This is in reference to your application for correction ofyour naval record pursuant to the 
provisions of 10 use 1552. 

Although your application not filed in a timely manner, the Board found in the interest ofjustice 
to waive the statute oflimitations and consider your case on its merits. A three-member panel of 
the Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your 
application on 23 September 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 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 that the 
evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence ofprobable material error or 
injustice. 

You enlisted in the United States Navy and began a period ofactive duty on 27 September 1983. 
You served for a period of about one year and six months without any disciplinary incidents. 
However, between 26 March 1985 and 4 April 1986, you received three separate nonjudicial 
punishments (NJP) for offenses including four specifications ofprovoking speech, two 
specifications ofassaulting a shore patrol officer, disorderly conduct, wrongfully urinating on 
your holding cell floor, failure to obey a lawful order or regulation, resisting apprehension, 
absenting yourself from your place ofduty, and absenting yourself without authority (UA). 
Although the Board lacked your entire Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), it appears from 
available records in the OMPF that your Commanding Officer discharged you on 25 July 1986 
by reason ofearly separation under an authorized program or circumstance, with a 
characterization ofhonorable and a reenlistment code ofRE-3R. You were released from active 
duty and transferred to the Naval Reserve. 

Subsequently, on 26July1986, you affiliated with a unit in the Naval Reserve. The Board 
determined that although it lacked your entire OMPF, it appears from available Administrative 
Remarks (NAVPERS 1070/613) in the OMPF, that on 15 September 1989 you were discharged 
from the Naval Reserves with an other than honorable conditions (OTH) discharge, coupled with 
the recommendation that you not be allowed to reenlist. 

The Board, in its review ofyour record and application, carefully weighed all potentially 
mitigating factors, such as your contention that "I believe the record to be in error, or unjust 
because there's no possible reason why the character ofmy Navy Reserve discharge could have 
been 'dishonorable'." The Board determined that these factors were not enough to justify relief 
in your case because ofyour failure to provide proof sufficient to warrant upgrading your 
discharge from OTH conditions to honorable. In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that 
a presumption ofregularity attaches to all official records. Consequently, when applying for1 a 
correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence 
ofprobable material error or injustice. 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 of new 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 this case. 

Sincerely, 

Executive Director