DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

Docket No: 00407-16 /7016-99 

JAN 03 2017 

Dear : 

This is in reference to your reconsideration request received on 8 January 2016. You previously 
petitioned the Board and were advised in our letter of22 March 2000, that your application had 
been denied. Your case was reconsidered in accordance with Board ofCorrection ofNaval 
Records procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Secretary ofthe Army, 335 F.Supp.2d 48 
(D.D.C 2004). 

Because your application was submitted with a new contention previously considered, the Board 
found it in the interest ofjustice to review your most recent application based on the new 
assertion provided. In this regard, your current request has been carefully examined by a threemember 
panel ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records on 2 September 2016. The names 
and votes ofthe members of the panel will be furnished upon request. Documentary material 
considered by the Board consisted ofyour application and any material submitted in support of 
your application. 

After careful and conscientious consideration ofthe entire record, the Board determined that the 
statements you provided, even though not previously considered by the Board, were insufficient 
to establish the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. A review of your recent 
application reveals that again your request must be denied. In this regard, the Board considered 
your statement that you would like to upgrade your Other Than Honorable (OTH) discharge 
characterization because you were not permitted to finish your tour ofduty as requested. The 
Board noted that your record reflects that on 16 March 1981, you requested an OTH 
administrative separation in lieu ofappearing before a court martial for allegations of 
unauthorized absence (UA). Your request for a discharge came after a period ofunauthorized 
absence from 7May1980 until 8January1981. Prior to the eight-month absence, you had been 
UA for two extended periods (4 September fo 30 November 1979 and 4 January to 10 April 
1980). On 2 August 1979, you had also been found guilty at special court martial proceedings 
for a period ofUA from 30 April to 5 July 1979 and for missing movement. 

The Board determined that your request for an administrative discharge coupled with the 
frequency and length of your UAs warranted the approval ofan OTH characterization ofservice. 
The Board noted your assertion, but determined that your record did not support your contention 
that you asked to complete your enlistment contract. The Board determined that your record 
does not reflect an error or injustice that warrants correction. Accordingly, your application has 
been denied. 

In the absence ofsufficient material evidence for reconsideration, the decision ofthe Board is 
final, and your only recourse is to initiate action, at no cost to the Board, to a court ofappropriate
jurisdiction. 

Sincerely, 


Executive Director