DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 
Docket No: 4245-17/ 8215-15 

Dear

This is in reference to your reconsideration request received on 3 May 2017. You previously petitioned the Board and were advised in our letter of I February 2017, that your application had been denied. Your case was reconsidered in accordance with Board ofCorrection of Naval Records procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Secretary ofthe Army, 335 F.Supp.2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). 

Because your application was submitted with additional assertions oferror and injustice, the Board found it in the interest ofjustice to review your most recent application. In this regard, your current request has been carefully examined by a three-member panel of the Board for Correction of aval Records on 24 July 2017. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request. 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 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 of record. 

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board determined that the statements you provided, even though not previously considered by the Board, were insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. The Board considered your claims ( l) that the Navy did not follow its own protocol and procedural process under MILPERSMAN 3630600 and MILPERSMAN 1910-140, (2) that the nature of your misconduct did not warrant discharge from the Navy; (3) that the Navy failed to provide you adequate counsel during the discharge process; (4) that your due process rights were violated by an order to waive your rights; and (5) that the Navy failed to "thoroughly investigate the charges to conclusion." You admit to guilt for the 10 April 1987 incident, but contend that "the two incidents dated 10 February 1987 and 5 March 1987 never occurred." You state you would like to appear in person before the Board clear your name, and receive an Honorable discharge. 

The Board considered your assertions but noted that you did not provide evidence supporting your contentions of error or injustice. In reliance on the information in your service record, and in consideration of the presumption of regularity, the Board found that your assertions, absent supporting evidence, did not overcome the information reflected in your record. The Board again concluded that a review of your record reveals that you were found guilty of various infractions at three separate nonjudicial punishment (NJP) proceedings, and that the three NJPs served as a basis for your separation due to a pattern ofmisconduct. The Board noted that the information in your record indicates that the NJP proceedings were executed in compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements, that the record does not indicate that the allegations of misconduct were improperly or insufficiently investigated; and that the record reflects that your administrative separation proceedings complied with the avy's regulatory requirements. The Board found that you failed to establish that you were deprived of your right to due process, that you were wrongfully denied appropriate counsel, or that you were coerced or ordered to waive your rights. The Board concluded that your assertions in your request for reconsideration were not supporting by evidence or information that overcame the information reflected in your service record. Accordingly, your application has again been denied. 

It is regretted that the circumstances of your reconsideration petition are such that favorable action cannot be taken again. 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 the absence ofsufficient new and material evidence for reconsideration, the decision of the Board is final, and your only recourse would be to seek relief, at no cost to the Board, from a court of appropriate jurisdiction. 
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 of probable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 

Executive Director