DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

Docket No: 1611-16 
FEB 01 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. The application was filed in a timely manner. 

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 9 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 ofprobable material error or injustice. 

You reenlisted in the Navy on 20 July 1991 after more and nine years ofprior service. On 
19 July 1992, you were arrested by civilian authorities on charges ofdriving under the influence of 
alcohol with blood alcohol content (BAC) of.253, while operating a motorcycle; driving 68 miles 
per hour (MPH) in a 55 MPH zone; and resisting apprehension. On 7 August 1992, you received 
nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failure to obey a lawful order to refrain from drinking alcohol, and 
for making a false official statement. 

Subsequently, you were processed for administrative separation by reason ofmisconduct due to 
commission of a serious offense. Prior to this processing, you were advised ofyour rights, including 
the right to consult with a qualified military attorney and to present your case before an 
Administrative Discharge Board (ADB). You waived those rights. Your commanding officer 
recommended a General discharge under honorable conditions, and the discharge authority approved 
the recommendation. On 5 October 1992 you were discharged as directed. 

The Board, in its review ofyour entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially 
mitigating factors, such as your assertion that someone told you it is possible to upgrade your 
discharge after six months. However, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to 
warrant relief in your case due to the seriousness ofyour misconduct. The Board also believed that 
you were fortunate to receive a general discharge, since a characterization ofunder other than 
honorable conditions is often directed when a Sailor is separated for misconduct. In this regard the 
Board concluded that the severity ofyour misconduct outweighed your desire to upgrade your 
discharge. Finally, there is no provision oflaw or in Navy regulations that allows for 
recharacterization ofservice due solely to the passage oftime. Accordingly, your application has 
been denied. 

The Board also noted that you should contact the Department of the Navy, Navy Personnel 
Command (BUPERS), Sailor Assistance Centbr, Code Pers-312F, 5720 Integrity Brive, Millington, 
TN 38055-3120, to request that administrative corrections to your DD-214. 

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 of the 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