DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
70 1 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204·2490
 
Docket No: 347-16 
JAN 03 2017 

Dear : 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your 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 of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 28 September 2016. The names and votes ofthe members of the 
panel will be furnished upon request. Your allegations of error 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. 

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 of active duty on 1 March 1982. You served for just 
over three months without disciplinary incident, but during the period from 23 June 1982 to 
25 November 1982, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on three separate occasions. 
Your offenses included: underage drinking, destruction ofgovernment property, failure to obey a 
lawful order, unauthorized absence (UA) from your unit for seven days, and wrongful use of 
man1uana. 

Subsequently, on 3 August 1983 you were notified of pending administrative separation 
processing by reason ofmisconduct due to a pattern of misconduct, and misconduct due to drug 
abuse, at which time you waived your procedural rights to present your case to an administrative 
discharge board (ADB). Your Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than 
honorable conditions by reason ofmisconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct for 
drug abuse. While your separation processing was pending, on 18 August 1983, you once again 
received NJP for UA, a failure to go to your appointed place ofduty, being incapacitated for the 
proper performance of duties, disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer, and failure to 
obey a lawful order or regulation. The discharge authority ultimately approved the Commanding 
Officer's recommendation and directed separation under other than honorable conditions by 
reason ofmisconduct. On 29 August 1983, you were so discharged. 

The Board, in its review ofyour entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially 
mitigating factors, such as your contention that you were too young to fully comprehend the 
lifetime consequences. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to 
warrant relief in your case because ofthe seriousness ofyour repeated misconduct that resulted in 
four ( 4) separate NJPs. In regard to your contention, the Board believed that to recharacterize 
your service to honorable conditions would be grossly unjust and a disservice to those who 
served honorably and completed their enlistments without any disciplinary actions. The Board 
concluded the discharge is appropriate and no change is warranted. 

Additionally, the Board noted that the record shows that you waived your procedural right to 
present your case to an ADB. In doing so, you gave up your first and best opportunity to 
advocate for retention or a more favorable characterization ofservice. Finally, there is no 
provision of federal law or in Navy regulations that allows for recharacterization ofservice due 
solely to the passage oftime. 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 ofprobable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 


Executive Director