DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

Docket No: 8388-16 

Dear 

This is in reference to your application for correction ofyour naval record pursuant to the 
provisions oftitle 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 oflirnitations and consider your application on its merits. A threemember 
panel ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 24 October 2017. 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 ofyour application, together 
with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions ofyour naval record and 
applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 

Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal 
appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to their understanding ofthe issue( s) 
involved. Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and 
considered your case based on the evidence ofrecord. 

You enlisted in the Navy on 22 June 1992. During the period from 19 August to 6 October 
1994, you were diagnosed unfit for duty on two separate occasions and recommended for a 
Counseling and Assistance Center (CAAC) screening and a medical officer evaluation for 
alcohol dependence. On 14 October 1994, you were convicted by summary court martial (SCM) 
of the following offences: absent from appointed place ofduty, failure to obey a lawful order, 
two specifications ofsleeping and drunk on duty, and drunk and incapacitated for duty. 
Subsequently, you were notified ofpending administrative separation action by reason of 
misconduct due to commission ofa serious offense. Your Commanding Officer recommended 
an other than honorable (OTH) discharge by reason ofmisconduct due to commission of a 
serious offense. The discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed separation 
under OTH conditions by reason ofmisconduct. On 13 December 1994, you were discharged. 

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. The 
Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as character letters, post service 
conduct, your desire to upgrade your discharge, change narrative reason, change RE-4 reentry 
code, and contentions that your service was impaired due to undiagnosed and untreated alcohol 
abuse, you were not referred for evaluation or treatment, your discharge was based on one 
incident, and you have been sober, a good citizen, and a productive member of society for I 3 
years. However, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in 
your case given the seriousness ofyour misconduct resulting in a SCM conviction. 

In regard to your contentions that your service was impaired due to undiagnosed and untreated 
alcohol abuse and you were not referred for evaluation or treatment. The Board noted that the 
record shows that you were notified of and waived your procedural right to present your case to 
an administrative board (ADB). In doing so, you gave up your first and best opportunity to 
advocate for retention or a more favorable characterization ofservice. 

Regarding your contention that your discharge was the result of one isolated incident. The Board 
noted that the record contains documented evidence which is contrary to your contention that 
your discharge was the result ofone isolated incident. The record clearly shows you were 
diagnosed on two separate occasions ofbeing unfit for duty with a BAC above the legal limit. 
The Board alsci noted that a Sailor's service is characterized at the time of discharge based on 
performance during the current enlistment. 

Itis 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. New 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 ofan official naval record, the 
burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 


Executive Director