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

Docket No: 8155-18                                     
Ref: Signature Date 

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 30 October 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 6 February 1989.  You served for seven months without disciplinary incident, but during the period from 22 September 1989 to 30 March 1990, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on four occasions.  Your offenses were unauthorized absence (UA) from your unit for periods totaling 43 days, failure to obey a lawful order, insubordinate conduct toward a noncommissioned officer, absence from your appointed placed of duty, willful disobedience of a superior commissioned officer, and missing ship’s movement.  On 14 November 1991, you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of UA from your unit for periods totaling 472 days, failure to obey a lawful order from a commissioned officer, and breaking restriction.  You were sentenced to confinement, forfeiture of pay, and a bad-conduct discharge (BCD).  On 18 October 1992, you were discharged with a BCD after appellate review of your case was complete. 

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade your discharge, and your youth and immaturity at the time of your misconduct, as well as your contention that you had a family emergency and had to protect your mother and family.  The Board, however, concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case because of the seriousness of your repeated misconduct, which resulted in four NJPs and a SPCM conviction, and which included assault, breaking restriction, repeated disobedience, and periods of UA lasting a year and five months.  The Board was sympathetic to your family distress but noted that there was no evidence in your record, and you submitted none, to show that your personal problems could not be resolved through standard military channels.  Further, the Board has no authority to set aside a court-martial conviction and must limit its review to determining whether the sentence should be modified as a matter of fairness or clemency.  In your case, the Board determined that no clemency is warranted.  The Board, in its review, discerned no material error or injustice in your discharge. 

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 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, 


11/8/2019