Docket No: 2892-18 
Ref: Signature date 

Dear  
 
This letter 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 21 May 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 on 11 July 1989.  On 8 January 1990, you submitted a written request to be discharged from the naval service with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service, for the good of the service (GOS), to avoid trial by special court-martial (SPCM) while in pre-trial confinement for two specifications of unauthorized absence (UA) totaling 122 days.  Prior to submitting this request, you conferred with a qualified military lawyer, at which time you were advised of your rights and warned of the probable adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge.  In your personal statement accompanying your request for a GOS discharge with an OTH characterization, you state that you absented yourself from your unit without authorization on two occasions your spouse was ill, living on the streets and needed money.  You added that you relocated to  because the rent was “cheap,” and the “jobs pay good” and you “were doing great.”  You asked that the separation authority approve your GOS/OTH instead of trying you by SPCM so that you could “provide adequate income and adequate living conditions for [your] wife as soon as possible.”  Your personal statement makes no mention of claustrophobia.  On 8 January and 5 February 1990, you were medically examined and considered physically qualified for separation from active duty.  You were further found to have “no defects which would disqualify you from the performance of your duties,” and advised that if you believed that the forgoing was incorrect, a medical officer would evaluate your claim.  On 25 January 1990, the separation authority granted your GOS request, and your commanding officer (CO) was directed to issue an other than honorable (OTH) discharge for the good of the service.  As a result of this action, you were spared the stigma of a court-martial conviction, as well as the potential penalties of such a punitive discharge.  On 6 February 1990, pursuant to your request, you were discharged under other than honorable conditions.   
 
The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade your discharge, and contentions that your recruiter knew you were claustrophobic before your duty station was considered and your claustrophobia was listed as a medical psychological impairment.  However, the Board found that factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case given your request for a GOS discharge in lieu of a trial by court-martial. 
 
In regard to your contention that your recruiter knew you were claustrophobic before your duty station was considered and your claustrophobia was listed as a medical psychological impairment, the Board noted that there is no evidence in your record, and you submitted none, to support your contention that you were claustrophobic prior to or during your active duty service.  The Board also noted that a review of your medical records showed you were physically qualified for separation from active duty and had no history of psychiatric treatment. 
 
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 submission of new matters.  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. 
                                                                           
Sincerely, 
7/22/2019
Executive Director