DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 
Docket No: 449-16 
DEC 21 2016 


Dear 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 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 of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 August 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 of this 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, 

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 9 February 2000. On 27 December 2000, you submitted a written request for discharge for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial for being in a unauthorized absence (UA) status for 142 days. Prior to submitting this request, you conferred with a qualified military lawyer at which time you were advised ofyour rights and warned ofthe probable adverse consequences ofaccepting such a discharge. Your request was granted and your commanding officer was directed to issue an other than honorable (OTH) discharge by reason ofthe good ofthe service. As a result of this action, you were spared the stigma of a court-martial conviction and the potential penalties of a punitive discharge and confinement at hard labor. On 8 January 2001, you were so discharged. 

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially 
mitigating factors, such as your character letter, name change, your desire to upgrade your 
discharge, change your reentry code, change your name on your Certificate of Release or 
Discharge from Active Duty, and assertions that you went UA to help with the family business 
and the fact that it has been over 15 years since your discharge. Nevertheless, the Board found 
that these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case given your misconduct. 

In this regard, the Board concluded that your lengthy period of UA was sufficient to warrant the 
issuance of an OTH discharge and outweighed your desire to upgrade your discharge. The Board believed that considerable clemency was extended to you when your request for discharge to avoid trial by court-martial was approved. Further, the Board concluded that you received the benefit of your bargain with the Navy when your request for discharge was granted and that your discharge should not be changed now. The Board also noted that According to navy regulations and guidelines-as outlined in Military Personnel Manual (MILPERSMAN) Section 11 60-030-in order to be eligible for retention or reenlistment, a service member must receive a positive recommendation from his or her commanding officer, regarding retention or reenlistment suitability. In your case, your commanding officer indicated he was not recommending you for retention. The reason for this decision was due to your request for discharge in lieu oftrial by court martial for being UA for 142 days. The Board also carefully considered your desire to have your name changed on your DD Fo1m 214. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to change your OMPF to reflect your name change. The Board did not find any error at the time ofyour discharge, or an injustice arising from disclosing your fo1mer name when using your DD Fann 214 to apply for employment or various benefits. Further/Finally, there is no provision of Jaw or in Navy regulation that allows for recharacterization of service due solely to the passage of time/good behavior after discharge. 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 of new and material evidence within one year from the date of the 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 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