Docket No: 8466-17 
MAY 3 2019								

Dear 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions 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 9 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 and began a period of active duty on 12 February 1990. You served for nearly seven months without disciplinary incident, but during the period from 3 October 1991 to 8 May 1992, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on two occasions and were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM).  Your offenses were unauthorized absence (UA) your unit for a period of 36 days, missing ship’s movement, failure to go to your appointed place of duty, and incapacitated for duty.  Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative separation by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct at which time you waived your procedural rights to consult with legal counsel and to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ABD).  On 15 May 1992, you were diagnosed with early alcohol dependence and recommended for administrative separation, you denied alcohol dependence and refused Level III Rehabilitation treatment via Veteran’s Affairs. Your commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.  On 30 May 1992, you were the subject of a psychiatric evaluation due to suicidal ideation and veiled homicidal thoughts wrote in a note to your chain of command. You were diagnosed with Mixed Personality Disorder with Suicidal (abated), Homicidal (veiled in a note) ideations and a history of alcohol abuse.  It was recommended that you should not return to any ship because of your severe character and behavior disorder and under stress of ship life, you could become dangerous to self and others.  Therefore, you should be expeditiously discharged from the Navy.  The discharge authority approved the recommendation and directed your separation under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct.  On 29 June 1992, you were discharged. 

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your post service achievements and conduct and your contentions that you enlisted while very young and you were introduced to alcohol and it caused you to make bad decisions, that you were under the impression that you were being discharged because of the depression and the psychiatrist recommendation, you were never told you were being discharged for misconduct, and were told that your discharged would be upgraded after six months.  

The Board reviewed your statement and your character letters and commands you on your post service accomplishments.  In regard to your contention the Board considered your youth and immaturity as factors in your behavior, however, struggled with your repeated misconduct during your 2 years in the Navy.  The Board noted that you provided no evidence to support your contention that you were never told that your discharge was for misconduct.  The Board also noted that the record contains documented evidence which is contrary to your contention.  Specifically, your DD Form 214 indicates that you were being discharged for “Misconduct-Pattern of Misconduct” and block 21 shows your signature.  Additionally, the Board noted that you waived the right to an ADB which was your best opportunity for retention or a better characterization of service.  Finally, there is no provision of law or in Navy regulations that allows for recharacterization of service to be upgraded after six months.  The Board in its review discerned no impropriety or inequity in the discharge and concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case because of the seriousness of your repeated misconduct that resulted in two NJPs, an SCM and more than a month of UA from your command.  

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