This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisons of Title 10 of the United States Code, Section 1552.   After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to 
establish the existence of probable material  error or injustice.   Consequently,  your application  has been denied.

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 three­ member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 July 2018. The names and votes of the 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, relevant portions of your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.

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

You enlisted  in the Navy on 1 September  1987.   During the period from 23 July 1990 to 22   March 1991, you received three non-judicial  punishments  (NJP) for unauthorized  absence (UA) on three separate occasions totaling 54 days.  On  1O June 1992, you submitted  a written request   
for discharge for the good  of the service to avoid  trial by court-martial  for 156 days of UA.  Prior to submitting  this request,  you conferred  with a qualified  military lawyer,  at which time you were advised  of your rights and warned  of the probable adverse consequences  of accepting   sucha discharge. Your request was granted and your Commanding Officer (CO) was directed to issue an other than honorable (0TH) discharge for the good of the service. As a result of this action, you were spared the stigma of a court-martial conviction, as well as the potential penalties of such a punitive. discharge. On 17 June 1992, you were discharged.

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade your discharge and your contentions you recall being a E-4 at your discharge and you were told that your discharge would be honorable and automatically be upgraded. The Board noted that your record contains documented evidence which is contrary to your contention that you were discharged as an E-4. The record clearly shows that on 25 January 1991, you received NJP and was awarded reduction in rate to E-2. In regard to your contention that you thought your discharge would automatically be upgraded, the Board noted that there is no provision in law or regulations that allows for re-characterization of a discharge automatically. Regarding your contention that you were told you would receive an administrative or honorable discharge, the Board noted that there is no evidence in your record, and you submitted none, to support your contention that you were told you would receive an honorable discharge. The Board in its review discerned no impropriety or inequity in your discharge and concluded that your misconduct outweighed your desire to upgrade your discharge.

It is regretted that the circumstances of your 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 of regularity 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,