DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

Docket No: 2782-16 
MAY 05 2017 

Dear

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the 
provisions oftitle 10 ofthe United States Code, section 1552. 

Although your application was hot 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 7 February 2017. The names and votes ofthe members of the 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. · 

You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 23 February 1990. On 31 January 
1991 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failure to be at your appointed place of duty. 
On 11 August 1993, you received NJP for damage to personal property, assault consummated by a 
battery, and being drunk and disorderly. Subsequently, you were notified ofpending administrative ., 
separation action by reason ofmisconduct due to commission of a serious offense. You did not 
consult with counsel and waived your right to an administrative discharge board. Your 
commanding officer recommended an under other than honorable (OTH) discharge by reason of 
misconduct due to commission ofa serious offensce. Prior to the adjudication of your 
administrative discharge, on 9 December 1993, you received NJP for destruction of government 
property. On 16 December 1993, the discharge authority directed an OTH character of service, 
narrative reason for separation of misconduct. -commission ofa serious offense, and a separation 
code ofHKQ. On 20 December 1993, you were discharged. 

After careful and conscientious consideration ofthe entire record, the Board found the evidence 
submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. The 
Board, in its review ofyour entire record and application, carefully weighed your desire to upgrade 
your discharge, change the narrative reason for separation, change the separation code, and 
contention that your discharge was too harsh under MILPERSMAN 1910-142. 

The Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case given the 
severity ofyour misconduct outweighed your desire to upgrade your discharge. In regards to your 
contention, you waived your procedural right to present your case to an administrative board 
(ADB). In doing so, you gave up your first and best opportunity to advocate for retention or a more 
favorable characterization of service. Additionally, members may be separated based on 
commission ofa serious military or civilian offense when the offense would warrant a punitive 
discharge. Per the Manual for Court-Martial, the maximum punishment for assault consurmnated 
by a battery is a bad conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 
months. 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 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 of regularity 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