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

Docket No: 2043-16 

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 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 6 March 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 of this 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. 
You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 20 February 1990. On 13 April 1990, you received a psychological evaluation and were found to be qualified for aircrew duty. On 3 August 1990, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for three 
specifications offailure to go to your appointed place ofduty. 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 27 August and 27 September 1990, you received NJP for offenses including failure to go to your appointed place ofduty and failure to obey a lawful 
order. On 9 January 1991, you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of seven 
specifications offailure to go to your appointed place ofduty and assault. In view ofthe 
foregoing, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason ofmisconduct. After 
consulting with counsel, you elected to present your case before an administrative discharge 
board (ADB). The ADB convened on 12 March 1991. Although you were represented by 
qualified counsel, you were UA from the prescribed ADB. Your Commanding Officer 
documented in your record that the ADB members and counsel waited a full hour before 
proceeding without you. The ADB found that you committed misconduct as evidenced by a 
pattern ofmisconduct and your commission ofa serious offense. The ADB recommended that 
you receive an other than honorable (OTH) discharge. Your Commanding Officer concurred with the recommendation and forwarded your case. The discharge authority directed an OTH discharge by reason ofmisconduct. You were discharged on 11 April 1991. 
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. The Board carefully considered your desire to upgrade your characterization ofservice to general or honorable. The Board considered your personal statement and the impact that your childhood had on you. The Board considered your arguments that your superiors failed to identify your mental illness despite obvious symptoms, and refused to grant your request for professional help. The Board also considered your argument that your conduct was not willful or intentional as well as your assertion ofineffective counsel. The Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization ofyour discharge, given the seriousness ofyour misconduct which resulted in three separate NJP's and a SCM conviction. Further, the Board noted that you were represented by counsel, but that you failed to attend the ADB, your first and best opportunity to receive a better characterization ofservice. In regards to your argument that your superiors failed to identify your mental illness, the Board recognized that the advocacy letter submitted with your application states that, in 2001 you were diagnosed with bipolar with schizophrenic affective disorder. However, without the appropriate medical or clinical documentation regarding your diagnosis, or other evidence that you suffered from mental illness or symptoms of mental illness during your service from February 1990 to April 1991, the Board is unable to establish a nexus between mental illness and the misconduct underlying your discharge. 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