DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

Docket No: 2058-16 
MAR 12 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 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 17 January 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 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. 

On 14 October 1998 you were listed in an unauthorized absence (UA) status until you returned 
on 8 November 1998. On 12 November 1998 you went UA. On 14 December 1998 you were 
declared a deserter. On 16 January 1999, you were apprehended and placed in hands ofcivilian 
authority (IHCA) for charges ofpetty larceny. On 21January1999 you were returned to 
military control and were listed as returning from a UA status. Subsequently, you requested to 
be discharged to avoid a trial by court-martial for UA. As a result ofthis action, you were spared 
the stigma ofa court-martial conviction and the potential penalties ofa punitive discharge imd 
confinement. On 24 March 1999, you were discharged with an other than honorable 
characterization ofservice. 

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially 
mitigating factors, such as your age at the time, your assertion that your Commanding Officer 
told you that you could get your discharge upgraded after six months, and your desire to upgrade 
your discharge. 

However, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case 
given the seriousness of your misconduct. Further, there is no provision in law or regulations 
that allows for re-characterization of a discharge automatically after six months or due solely to 
the passage oftime. The Board believed that considerable clemency was extended to you when 
your request for discharge was approved. The Board also concluded that you received the 
benefit of your bargain with the Navy when your request for discharge was granted and should 
not be permitted to change it now. Accordingly, your application has been denied. 

It is regretted that the circumstances of your 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 of an official naval record, the burden is on the 
applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 


Executive Director