DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

Docket No: 9169-17 
Ref: Signature date 

Dear 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant 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 three-
member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 28 February 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 27 November 1990. On 29 
November 1990, you were briefed on the Navy’s policy on drug and alcohol abuse. On 25 April 
1991, you received a civilian conviction for resisting arrest, and a minor in possession. On 26 
April 1991, you were counseled regarding your civilian conviction and notified any further 
misconduct may result in administrative separation. On 27 August 1991, you underwent a 
medical evaluation in which you were determined to be psychologically dependent to alcohol. 
On 3 September 1991, your commanding officer recommended alcohol rehabilitation. On 9 
September 1991, you began level III alcohol rehabilitation. On 4 May 1992, you received 
civilian conviction for driving under the influence. On 23 July 1992, you were notified of the 
initiation of administrative separation proceedings by reason of alcohol rehabilitation failure. On 
28 September 1992, you were re-notified of administrative separation processing by reason of 
alcohol rehabilitation failure, and civilian conviction, at which point, you declined your 
procedural rights and refused 30-day inpatient treatment via the Veterans Administration (VA) 
prior to your separation. On 10 November 1992, you were discharged with an OTH 
characterization of service by reason of misconduct-convicted by a civil court for offense 
occurring during current term of military service. 

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade 
your discharge and contentions that you were addicted to alcohol, your civilian conviction was a 
result of your surgery that you received in service, you were involved in an altercation with 
police causing your arrest, you were offered an early discharge because the military was 
downsizing, and three months after your discharge you noticed that you received an OTH. With 
regard to your contention for the reason for your discharge, your service record shows that the 
discharge was initiated by your civil conviction and alcohol rehabilitation failure. In the notice 
you signed for that discharge, the least favorable characterization is specified as OTH. After 
treatment, the Navy was not required to provide further alcohol treatment in the event of 
continued alcohol abuse. In regard to your case, there was not documentation in your record, 
and you provided none, to support your remaining contentions. Given the extent and severity of 
your misconduct, the Board in its review discerned no impropriety or inequity in your discharge 
characterization. 

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, 

4/29/2019