Docket No: 10014-18 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 for Correction of Naval Records (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, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 September 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, 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 28 July 1981. On 27 December 1982, you began a period of unauthorized absence (UA) that continued until you surrendered on 4 January 1983. On 22 February 1983, you began another period of UA that continued until you surrendered on 28 February 1983. On 12 April 1983, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for UA and you were advised that failure to take corrective action may result in administrative separation and judicial proceedings. On 30 July 1983, you were counseled regarding your Enlisted Performance Evaluation Report and assigned a military behavior mark of 2.8. On 31 January 1984, you were counseled regarding your Enlisted Performance Evaluation Report and assigned military knowledge/performance and initiative marks of 2.8 and a reliability mark of 2.6 due to frequent UA, an indifferent attitude, and poor military appearance. On 16 January 1984, you began another period of UA that continued until you surrendered on 25 January 1984. On 26 March 1984, you received a second NJP for UA and larceny. On 16 June 1984, you received a third NJP for three instances of failure to go to your appointed place of duty. On 9 September 1984, began another period of UA that continued until you surrendered on 11 September 1984. On 21 September 1984, you began another period of UA that continued until you surrendered on 24 September 1984. On 20 November 1984, you received a fourth NJP for UA. On 23 November 1984, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct. After being afforded all of your procedural rights, you waived them, and your case was forwarded to the separation authority for review. Your commanding officer recommended that you receive an under other than honorable (OTH) conditions discharge and the separation authority approved your separation for misconduct from the Navy. While you were pending separation, you went UA again on 17 December 1984. On 23 January 1985, you received an OTH discharge in absentia. You requested the Board upgrade your discharge. You asserted that on 20 December 1984, while aboard the you were working when another Sailor approached you with a knife and accused you of stealing from him. He tried to cut you, but you defended yourself and hit him in the face, breaking his nose. Furthermore, you state you did not sign discharge papers, your DD Form 214, Line 28 “Narrative Reason for Separation” is not true because you were not involved in any other confrontation, and you asked the Board to take into consideration how your discharge has affected you. The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your record of service and contentions, but concluded these factors were insufficient to warrant a change to your discharge given your misconduct that resulted in four NJPs, three of which occurred after you had been warned about the potential for administrative separation. With respect to your contention regarding being assaulted and defending yourself, the Board noted that you provided no evidence to support your contentions. Absent of such evidence, the Board relied upon the presumption of regularity and presumed that the officials acted in good faith according to governing law and policy. With respect to your contention that your narrative reason for separation, frequent misconduct, is untrue, the Board noted you went UA at least nine times and committed larceny. Lastly, there is no provision of law or in Navy regulations that allows for recharacterization 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. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the submission of new matters, which will require you to complete and submit a new DD Form 149. New matters are those not previously presented to or 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.