DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 
 Docket No: 00588-16 
JAN 27 2017 

Dear:

This is in reference to your application for correction of your nfYal record pursuant to the 
provisions oftitle 1O ofthe United States Code, section 1552. 

Although your application was not filed in a timely marmer, 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 of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 October 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 began a period ofactive duty in the Navy on 19 March 1986. Within your first month of service, you tested positive for amphetamines and were seen by Naval Regional Medical Center Branch Clinic. You requested to stay on active duty, and were recommended for treatment at the local level and recommended for retention. Your medical record indicates that you were prescribed Antabuse, and received alcohol rehabilitation treatment. On 30 January 1987, you received nonjudicial punishment for drunk and disorderly conduct which was ofa nature brining discredit upon the armed forces, and were awarded forfeiture ofpay of$150 per month for one month, restriction, and extra duty for 21 days. On 9 October 1987, you sought medical treatment and discussed depression, anxiety and stress with your treatment provider. On I January 1988, you began a period ofunauthorized absence, and remained absent until your apprehension at your home in California, on 22 April 1988. After your return to military control, you began a second period ofunauthorized absence on 13 July 1988, and remained absent until 4 August 1988. On 14 September 1988, at special court martial proceedings, you were found guilty of violating the Uniform Code ofMilitary Justice, Article 86 (unauthorized absence). The Court sentenced you to reduction in rank to E-1, forfeiture of$500 pay per month for 2 months, 45 days confinement, and a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD). You were discharged from the Navy on 21April1989, with a BCD. 

The Board considered your assertion that your discharge characterization of a BCD is unjust because you missed ship's movement due to factors beyond your control. Specifically, you note that you were treated for alcohol abuse during your military service, and the rehabilitation was unsuccessful. When you learned your ship was sailing to the Middle East, where alcohol was illegal, you absented yourself and returned to your home. The Board considered your medical record and your service contributions, as well as the supporting documents you provided with your application for correction. 

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your in-service alcohol dependency, your struggles reflected in your medical records, and your rehabilitation. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization ofyour discharge given the seriousness ofyour two periods ofunauthorized absence from I January 1988 until 2May1988, and from 13July1988 to 4 August 1988, as reflected on your DD 214, and by your special court martial conviction for unauthorized absence. The Board found that you were given the opportunity for rehabilitation, and that the court martial sentence of a BCD was not issued in error or injustice. The Board determined that the length ofyour absence warranted the BDC, and that clemency was not appropriate despite your struggles with alcohol abuse. The Board found the discharge 
characterization was not issued in error or injustice. 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 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 iajustice. 

Sincerely, 

Executive Director