DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

Docket No: 00431-16 

Dear : 

This is in reference to your application for correctiln 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 14 November 2016. 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 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 began a period ofactive duty in the Navy on 11 February 1987. You record reflects an 
entry for a positive urinalysis upon your entry into military service; you were found to have 
potential for military service. You received a page 13 in your record, and permitted to continue 
your service. On 8 March 1988, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for two days of 
unauthorized absence (UA) and disrespectful language to a superior petty officer, and were 
awarded reduction in rank to E-1, 3 days confinement to bread and water, and forfeiture of$200 
pay per month for 2 months. On 20 May 1988, you received a second NJP for four 
specifications ofUA and for failing to obey a lawful order, and were awarded 30 days restriction 
30 days extra duty, and forfeiture of$250 pay per month for 2 months. On 20 May 1988, you 
were recommended for administrative separation with an other than honorable characterization 
of service. You waived your right to appear before an administrative separation board. On 16 
June 1988, you were discharged from the Navy with an other than honorable characterization of 
service. 

The Board considered your personal statement in which you contend that the other than 
honorable discharge characterization is too severe for the nature of your misconduct. When 
making its determination, the Board also considered that you had a challenging relationship with 
the leadership within your chain of command at the time ofyour military service. 

The Board, in its review ofyour entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially 
mitigating factors, such as your difficulties with the noncommissioned officer within your 
leadership structure. The Board also considered the nature ofthe misconduct that resulted iil two 
NJPs and a recommendation for administrative discharge on the basis ofa commission ofa 
serious offense. The Board found that your record reflects disrespect and frequent UAs from 
your place ofduty. The Board determined that your misconduct oftwo days ofUA, four 
instances of failing to either go to or remain at your place ofduty, disrespect to a superior petty 
officer, and failing to obey a lawful order from a commander was serious in nature and 
warranted an other than honorable characterization of service. The Board reviewed the 
procedure by which you were notified and subsequently separated, and determined that your 
discharge was neither erroneous nor unjust. Accordingly, your application has been denied. 

It is regrettable that the circumstances o~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 ofan official naval record, the burden is 
on the applicant to demonstrate the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 


Executive Director