DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 
Docket No: 4356-17 
OCT 09 2017 

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 oflimitations and consider your application on its merits. A three­member panel of the Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, consider~d your application on 15 June 2017. The names and vo~es ofthe 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 of this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted ofyour application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 

You enlisted in the Navy and began a period ofactive duty on 14 September 2000. It appears you served without disciplinary inci~ent until you started an unauthorized absence (UA) on 4 January 2001 which lasted until you surrendered on 18 April 2001. On 19 April 2001 , you submitted a written request for an other than honorable (OTH) discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for your extended UA. Prior to submitting this request for discharge, you waived your right to confer with a qualified military lawyer, were advised ofyour rights, and warned of the probable adverse consequences ofaccepting such a discharge. Subsequently, your request for discharge was granted and on 9 May 2001, you received an OTH discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial and were assigned a RE-4 (not recommended for reenlistment) reentry code. As a result of this action, you were spared the stigma ofa court-martial conviction and the potential penalties ofa punitive discharge and confinement at hard labor. 

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, in its review ofyour application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors. The Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant reliefin your case because of the seriousness of your misconduct which resulted in your request for discharge, and your assigned reentry code was authorized and appropriately assigned in acco rdance with established regulations and guidelines at the time of your separation. The Board believed that considerable clemency was extended to you when your request for discharge to avoid trial by court-martial was approved. The Board concluded that you received the benefit of your bargain with the Navy when your request for discharge was granted and you should not be permitted to change it now. Additionally, the Board also considered your contention you were subjected to racism. The Board noted your prior statement that you "left because you received no help towards a problem you were dealing with in the barracks". Although your explanation for your extended UA period has been the same since your initial request to be separated, the Board noted there are no witness statements or evidence in the record, and you submitted none, to support your racism contention. Lastly, the Board considered your contention that your characterization ofservice should be changed to reflect the same characterization of service that was given by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA). The DY A only has the authority to recharacterize your service for purposes of determining eligibility for VA benefits. The DYA does not have any authority to change your naval record. Accordingly, your application has been denied. 

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, 

Executive Director