DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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


Docket No: 3750-17 

OCT 2 5 2018 

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. 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. 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 oflimitations and consider your application on its merits. A threemember 
panel ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 25 July 2018. The names and votes ofthe 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 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 of the 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 and began a period of active duty on 17 June 1992. During the period 
from I 0 November 1992 to 27 March 1995, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on three 
occasions for two specifications offailure to obey a lawful regulation, unauthorized absence for 
a period of five days, dereliction in the performance of duties, and making a false official 
statement. Additionally, on 7 January 1994, you were convicted by civil authorities oflittering, 
being a minor in possession ofbeer, placing a glass on the highway, and possession of an open 
container. On 10April1995, you were notified of pending administrative separation by reason 
ofmisconduct due to a pattern ofmisconduct and commission of a serious offense. You 
consulted with counsel and requested an administrative discharge board (ADB). The ADB found 
that you had committed misconduct and recommended that you be discharged with a general 
(under honorable conditions) character of service. Your commanding officer concurred with the 
recommendation and forwarded it to the separation authority. On 21 July 1995, the separation 
authority directed that you be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) character 
ofservice by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and on 4 August 1995, you 
were discharged. On 22 March 2004, the Naval Discharge Review Board denied your request 
for an upgrade. 

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade 
your discharge in order to be eligible for educational benefits, your post-service conduct, and 
your contention that your discharge was unfair. The Board concluded these factors were not 
sufficient to warrant relief in your case because ofyour repeated misconduct that resulted in 
three NJPs and a civil conviction. There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization 
solely on the issue ofobtaining veterans benefits. The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) 
determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not BCNR. You should contact the nearest office 
of DVA concerning your right to apply for benefits. In regards to your contention, the Board in 
its review discerned no impropriety or inequity in the discharge. 

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. 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