DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 
 
Docket No: 9726-17 
Ref: Signature date 

Dear 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to 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 September 1988. On 27 July 
1989, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for obtaining services under false pretenses. 
On 20 August 1991, you received NJP for disobeying a lawful regulation. On 20 January 1992, 
you received NJP for disrespect toward a commissioned officer and disobedience of a 
commissioned officer, you were counseled regarding the aforementioned offenses, and notified 
further deficiencies may result in administrative separation. You were not recommended for 
advancement on 31 January 1992 and 2 July 1992. On 15 October 1992, you received NJP for 
disrespectful language toward a petty officer. On 23 August 1992, you were counseled regarding 
your insubordinate conduct toward WO, NCO, or petty officer, and notified further deficiencies 
may result in administrative separation. On 8 October 1993, you were discharged with an other 
than honorable (OTH) characterization of service in lieu of trial by court martial. 

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade 
your discharge and your inability to receive healthcare benefits for a condition acquired during 
service. In addition, you contend that you had an altercation with resulted in arrest for battery to 
law enforcement, you opted for an OTH characterization of service because you felt both the 
JAG officer and prosecutor were against you, and that you lacked competent representation. 

You state that you have worked your way up in your career and now volunteer at your church’s 
community soup kitchen. The Board commended your volunteer efforts in your community and 
your career development. Notwithstanding, the Board relies on a presumption of regularity to 
support the official actions of public officers and, in the absence of substantial evidence to rebut 
the presumption, to include evidence you may submit, the Board presumes Sailors are properly 
discharged from the Navy. In regard to your case, there was not documentation in your record, 
and you provided none, to support your 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