DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

Docket No: 1664-16 

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 oflimitations and consider your application on its merits. A threemember 
panel ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 3 February 2017. 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. 

Board regulations state that personal appearances before the Board are not granted as a right, but 
only when the Board determines that such an appearance will serve some useful purpose. In 
your case, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered 
your case based on the evidence ofrecord. 

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 began a period ofactive duty on 9 October 1980. On 18 March 
and 24 September 1982, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for violations ofthe 
Uniform Code of Military Justice that included being disrespectful in language and two periods 
ofunauthorized absence (UA). You were counseled and notified ofyour deficiencies and 
advised ofrecommended corrective action and available assistance. You were warned that 
failure to adhere to the counseling/warning may be grounds for administrative separation action. 
On 16 November 1982 you received NJP for UA. In view ofthe foregoing, administrative 
discharge action was initiated by reason ofmisconduct. You were advised ofyour rights and 
after waiving your procedural rights, 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. On 
21January1983, you were so discharged. 

The Board, in its review ofyour application and entire record, carefully considered your desire to 
upgrade your discharge. The Board also considered potentially mitigating factors, such as your 
assertion that you were coerced into joining the Navy, that your misconduct was due to family 
difficulties, and your regret that your personal issues led to your discharge status. The Board 
concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization ofyour discharge, given 
the seriousness ofyour misconduct which resulted in three separate NJPs. 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