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

Docket No: 8281-17 

APR 23 2019 

Dear : 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the 
provisions of Title 10, 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 threemember 
panel ofthe Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 17 January 2019. 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. 

You enlisted in the Navy on 21 June 1993 for four years. On 18 March 1994, you received nonjudicial 
punishment (NJP) for assault consun1mated by a battery and for two specifications of 
willful disobedience of and disrespect towards a Petty Officer. On 11 October 1996, you 
received a second NJP for unauthorized absence (UA) and disobeying a lawful order from a 
Petty Officer. On 9 December 1996, you received a counselling entry/retention warning for UA 
and for disobeying a lawful order. On 29 May 1997, you went to a third NJP for UA and also for 
missing movement of your ship, the                     , by design. On 20 June 1997, you 
went to NJP for a fourth time for UA, breaking restriction, and for failure to obey a lawful 
general regulation. 

On 25 June 1997, you were notified ofpending administrative separation action by reason of 
misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. On 26 June 1997 you executed your statement of 
awareness and elected an administrative separation board. The administrative separation board 
was held on 24 July 1997, and you were represented at the board by detailed military counsel. 
The board panel unanimously found that you committed misconduct, and that you should be 
separated from the Naval service with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of 
service (GEN). Your Commanding Officer concurred with the findings of the board, but 
recommended that you receive a less favorable other than honorable characterization. The 
discharge authority directed a GEN discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of 
misconduct. On 5 September 1997, you were discharged with a GEN characterization ofservice. 

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, including your contentions that 
you believed you could have finished your last two months at the TPU discipline barracks in 
            if you weren't separated, that the one thing you regret is not serving your country 
honorably and not receiving an honorable discharge, and that by getting your discharge changed 
it will help you with your future education. However, the Board determined these factors were 
not sufficient to warrant relief in your case given the collective seriousness of your offenses and 
your overall pattern of misconduct. The Board concluded your misconduct clearly supported the 
Commanding Officer's decision to process you administratively for a discharge, and for the 
separation authority to ultimately issue a GEN 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, 



Executive Director