DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 
Docket No: 5151 -16 
OCT 20 2017 

Dear

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of title l 0 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 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 18 July 2017. The names and votes of the 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 of this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted ofyour application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 
You enlisted in the avy on 29 May l 980. On 13 April 1984, you were convicted by special court martial (SPCM) of larceny of a bass boat, an HP motor, and a boat trailer. On 25 October 1984, you were convicted by summary court martial (SCM) of unauthorized absence (UA) totaling 34 days and missing ship's movement. Subsequently, you were notified ofpending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to commission ofa serious offense. After you waived your procedural rights, your Commanding Officer recommended an Other Than Honorable (OTH) discharge by reason of misconduct due to commission ofa serious 
offense. The discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed separation under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct. On 11 January l 985, you were discharged. 

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade your discharge and contentions that you were young and na'ive and was told your discharge would be upgraded after six months. The Board concluded that this factor was not sufficient to warrant relief in your case given your misconduct. In this regard, the Board concluded that the severity of your misconduct, which resulted in a SPCM and a PCM, were sufficient to warrant the TLG Docket
issuance of an OTH and as such outweighed your desire to upgrade your discharge. The Board noted that there is no provision in law or regulations that allows for re-characterization of a discharge automatically after six months. Accordingly, your application has been denied. 

It is regretted that the circumstances ofyour case are such that favorable action cannot be taken at this time. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the submission of new and material evidence. ew evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board. 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 of probable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 

Executive Director