DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

Docket No: 1599-16 

JAN 31 2017 

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 oflimitations 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 8 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 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 ofprobable material error or injustice. 

You enlisted in the Navy and begin a period of active duty on 21 August 1981. During the 
period from 4February1982 to 19 June 1984, you received five nonjudicial punishments (NJP) 
for the following offenses: unauthorized absence (UA), two specifications ofbeing absent from 
appointed place ofduty, failure to go to your appointed place ofduty, two specifications of 
dereliction ofduty, and disrespect to a senior Petty Officer. Subsequently, you were notified of 
pending administrative separation action by reason ofmisconduct due to frequent involvement 
with military or civil authorities. You elected to consult with legal counsel and subsequent! y 
requested an administrative discharge board (ADB). The ADB agreed with the NJP finding and 
recommended discharge under other than honorable (OTH) conditions by reason offrequent 
involvement with military or civil authorities. The discharge authority approved this 
recommendation and directed separation under other than honorable conditions by reason of 
misconduct. On 3 August 1984, you were discharged with an other than honorable 
characterization ofservice. 

The Board, in its review ofyour entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially 
mitigating factors, such as your post service conduct, your desire to upgrade your discharge, your 
desire to change your narrative reason for separation, and your assertion that you were 
discharged for being tardy to quarters-because ofyour bipolar disorder. However, the Board 
concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief given your misconduct. In this 
regard, the Board concluded that the seriousness ofyour repetitive misconduct, which resulted in 
five NJPs, outweighed your desire to upgrade your discharge and change your narrative reason 
for separation. The Board decided that your record supports the commanding officer's decision 
to issue you an OTH discharge. Moreover, the Board noted that there is no evidence in your 
record, and you submitted none, to support your assertion that you were discharged for being 
tardy, as a result ofsuffering from bipolar disorder. In the end, the Board concluded that your 
misconduct was too serious to warrant upgrading your discharge. 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. 

Sincerely, 


Executive Director