DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

Docket No: 956-16 
JAN 06 2017 

Dear 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the 
provisions oftitle 10 of the United States Code, section 1552. 

Although your application was not filed in a timely manrter, 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 of the Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 26 August 2016. The names and votes of the members ofthe 
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. 

Regarding your request for a personal appearance, Board regulations state that personal 
appearances before the Board are not granted as a right, but only when the Board determines that 
such an appearance will serve some useful purpose. In your case, the Board determined that a 
personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of 
record. 

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 16 June 1994. You served 
without disciplinary action until 6 July 1995, when you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) 
for assault. You were also counseled and notified of your deficiencies and advised of 
recommended corrective action and available assistance. You were warned that failure to adhere 
to the counseling/warning may be grounds for administrative separation action. On 
14 August 1996, you received NJP for failure to go to your appointed place ofduty, willful 
disobedience of a superior commissioned officer, willful disobedience ofa lawful order, false 
official statement, breach ofthe peace, and provoking speech and gestures. In view ofthe 
foregoing, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason ofmisconduct. You were 
advised ofyour rights and after consulting counsel, you waiving your procedural rights. Your 
commanding officer recommended a General (under honorable conditions) discharge and 
forwarded your case. The discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and directed a 
General (under honorable conditions) discharge by reason of misconduct. On 29 October 1996, 
you were so discharged with an RE-4 (ineligible for reenlistment) reentry code. 

The Board, in its review ofyour entire record and application, carefully considered your desire to 
upgrade your discharge and reentry code, and to change the narrative reason for discharge. The 
Board also considered your contention that you were falsely accused ofdisobeying orders, 
denied opportunities for advancement, and your assertion ofracist attitudes and remarks in your 
command. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant 
recharacterization ofyour discharge, given the seriousness ofyour misconduct which resulted in 
two NJPs. The Board noted that you were counseled and warned that failure to adhere to the 
counseling/warning may be grounds for administrative separation action, yet you continued to 
commit misconduct. Further, the Board found no evidence in the record, and you submitted 
none, other than your statement, to substantiate your contentions and assertion. Finally, 
individuals separated by reason of misconduct must receive an RE-4 reenlistment code. 
Individuals discharged by reason ofmisconduct normally receive discharges under other than 
honorable conditions. Thus, the Board believed that you were fortunate to receive a General 
(under honorable conditions) discharge. Accordingly, your application has been denied. 

It is regretted that the circumstances ofyour 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 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 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