DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

Docket No: 2016-16 

Dear

This is in reference to your application for correction ofyour naval record pursuant to the 
provisions oftitle 10 of the 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 ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive-session, 
considered your application on 24 January2017. 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 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 of the 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 4 October 1978. During the period 
from 17 August 1979 to 8 December 1980, you received seven nonjudicial punishments (NJP) 
for the following offenses: unauthorized absence (UA) for six days, five specifications of failure 
to go to your appointed place of duty, two specifications of disobeying a lawful order, 
disobeying a lawful regulation, possession of marijuana, and allowing a shipmate in an 
unauthorized area. Subsequently, you were notified ofpending administrative separation action 
by reason ofmisconduct due to frequent involvement with military authorities. After you 
waived your procedural rights, your commanding officer recommended discharge under other 
than honorable (OTH) conditions by reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement with 
military authorities. On 27 February 1981, you received your eighth NJP for disobeying a lawful 
order and two specifications of being absent from your appointed place ofduty. On 5 March 
1981, the discharge authority approved your commanding officer's recommendation and directed 
separation under other than honorable conditions by reason ofmisconduct. On 20 March 1981, 
you were discharged. 

The Board, in its review ofyour entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially 
mitigating factors, such as the medical report from EAEDC, your desire to upgrade your 
discharge and assertion that you were diagnosed with ADD/ ADHD after your discharge. 
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 misconduct, as 
evidenced by eight NJPs, outweighed your desire to upgrade your discharge and clearly supports 
the commanding officer's decision to issue you an OTH discharge. The Board was not 
persuaded by your assertion that you were not diagnosed with ADD/ ADHD until after your 
discharge. The Board concluded that your post-service ADD/ADHD diagnosis did not 
significantly mitigate the seriousness ofyour misconduct while on active duty. Finally, the 
Board concluded that the seriousness ofyour misconduct outweighed any mitigation that would 
be offered by your post-service diagnosis. Accordingly, your application has been denied. 

It is regretted that the circumstances ofyour case are such that favorable action cannot be taken 
at this time. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the submission of 
new and material evidence. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board. 

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