DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 6823-18 Ref: Signature Date 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 4 July 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, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 10 June 1969. You completed this enlistment with an Honorable characterization of service on 30 January 1973 and reenlisted on 31 January 1973. On 4 July 1978, you completed your second term of enlistment with an Honorable characterization of service and reenlisted on 5 July 1978. The record reflects on 19 September 1985, Commander, Naval Military Personnel Command (NMPC) conducted a Petty Officer Quality Control Review Board of your service record and noted you were not performing at the minimum level necessary to fulfill the responsibilities of your current paygrade of E-6 and recommended that you be administratively reduced in rate. On 3 October 1985, you made a voluntary statement voluntarily accepting the reduction in rate. On 9 October 1985, the commanding officer concurred with the Board’s recommendation. On 24 October 1985, NMPC directed that you be reduced to the paygrade of E-5. On 28 March 1986, Naval Criminal Investigation Service (NCIS) initiated an investigation concerning an alleged sexual abuse allegation against you. The NCIS investigation noted you were advised of your right to consult with legal counsel and elected to waive this right. The investigation concluded that you admitted culpability to the alleged allegation. On 6 November 1986, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for being absent from your appointed place of duty. Subsequently, as a result of the NCIS investigation, you were notified the initiation of administrative separation processing, at which time you elected to consult with legal counsel and to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB). The ADB found that you committed misconduct and recommended that you be discharged with an other than honorable (OTH) character of service. The commanding officer concurred with the ADB’s recommendation. The discharge authority directed that you be discharged with a character of service type warranted by your service record. On 14 September 1987, you were discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) character of service. Character of service is often based, in part, on the overall trait average (OTA), computed from marks assigned on a periodic basis. Your OTA was 2.89, which was below the OTA of 3.0 required at the time of your separation for a fully honorable characterization of service. The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade your discharge and reinstatement to the paygrade of E-6. The Board considered your contention that you have proof that the incident did not happen. The Board also considered your submission of supporting documentation on your behalf. In this regard, the Board considered your contention and submission of supporting documentation very carefully. However, this Board is not an investigating agency nor does it have the resources to investigate unsubstantiated allegations regarding individuals and occurrences. In regard to your request for reinstatement to the paygrade of E-6, the board discerned no material error or injustice in your reduction to the paygrade of E-5. The Board determined that you were properly reduced in rate. The Board concluded the seriousness of your misconduct outweighed your desire to upgrade your discharge. 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, 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. Sincerely, 10/7/2019