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

Docket No. 96-17 
JUL 0 6 2018 


This is in reference to your application for correction ofyour naval record pursuant to the 
provisions ofTitle 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 ofprobable 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 oflimitations 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 2 April 2018. The names and votes of the members of the panel 
will be fumished upon request. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in 
accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings ofthis 
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 2 August 1993. During the period 
of 22 August 1994 to 8 March 1995, you had three specifications of unauthorized absence (UA) 
totaling approximately 28 days and received a civilian conviction for battery with serious bodily 
injury. As a result of your civilian conviction you were sentenced to 363 days in San Diego 
County Jail. Subsequently, you were recommended for administrative separation under other 
than honorable (OTH) conditions by your Commanding Officer by reason ofmisconduct 
evidenced by your civilian conviction. The discharge authority approved the recommendation 
and directed separation under OTH conditions by reason ofmisconduct. On 30 June 1995, you 
were discharged in absentia. 

The Board in its review of your entire record and application carefully weighed all potentially 
mitigating factors, such as your contention that you never received military disciplinary action 
for offenses while in service other than the offense that resulted in your civilian conviction. The 
Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case because of your 
misconduct of being UA on three different occasions while in service and civilian conviction 
resulting in being sentenced to 363 days in    County Jail. Further, as a result of being 
incarcerated, you were discharged in absentia. 

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 ofregularity attaches to all 
official records. Consequently, when applying for a correction ofan official naval record, the 
burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 

Executive Director