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

Docket No: 8468-17 
APR 22 2019 


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 three­member 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, as well as applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 

You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 20 February 1986. On 11 March 1987, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for two specifications of absent from your appointed place of duty. On 15 October 1987, you were convicted by special court­martial (SPCM) of two specifications of unauthorized absence totaling 90 days. You were awarded reduction in rate, forfeiture of pay, confinement and a bad conduct discharge (BCD). After the BCD was approved at all levels ofreview, you were discharged on 21 July 1988. 

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade your discharge. The Board considered your contention that you were misled by your attorney into believing that the pretrial agreement you signed would automatically be upgraded in five years to a general discharge. The Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief given your misconduct that resulted in an NJP and SPCM and subsequent BCD. The Board found that even in consideration of the punishment imposed, the BCD was issued without error or injustice and clemency is not warranted. In regard to your contention, there is no evidence in your record and you presented none to support your contention. Additionally, there is no provision of law or in Navy regulation that allows for re-characterization of service due solely to the passage of time. 

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken at tlus thne. y OU 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. 

Executive Director