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

Docket No: 0922-18 


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 3 April 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.   

Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. 

You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active service on 20 July 1981.  On 15 July 1985, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for two specifications of dereliction of duty, for failing to change locks and for accepting IOUs in lieu of cash payments at the ship’s fountain, as well as three specifications of unauthorized absence (UA).  On 19 July 1985, you signed an acknowledgment of your non-recommendation for reenlistment due to adverse recommendation on your performance evaluation for the rating period beginning on 1 July 1984 to 19 July 1985.  You received a separation medical examination on 8 July 1985.  On 19 July 1985, you were 
discharged with an honorable characterization of service after the completion of your required active service and issued an “LBK” separation code. 

The Board considered the contention your separation code is incorrect and reviewed your supporting documentation, but concluded it was not sufficient to warrant an adjustment to your separation code. An “LBK” separation code, as set forth in NAVMILPERSCOMINST 1900.1A, indicates that your term of service expired and that you were involuntarily released from active duty, which is consistent with the 19 July 1985 counseling. It does not indicate you were a prisoner. The Board also considered the statements from your shipmates indicating the charge against you for failing to change locks lacked a factual basis. The statements, however, did not directly address whether you were told to change locks, only that the procedure was that an officer was normally the one who changed the locks. Also, you did not provide any evidence or allege that the UAs that were part of the same NJP were in error. Thus, even if the Board assumed the dereliction of duty charges against you were false, the UA charges remain, which would support the assignment of the separation code you received. The Board, therefore, did not find evidence of a material error or injustice. 

The Board received your 31 May 2019 statement that Lieutenant Junior Grade    , who you explained had charged you with not changing the locks and accepting IOUs, had been dismissed from the Navy for conduct unbecoming an officer for falsifying charges against you. You did not, however, provide any supporting evidence. The Board is not an investigatory body and will not seek to obtain evidence in support of petitions. Also, the statement was redundant to the those of your shipmates and, as discussed above, even if the dereliction of duty charges lacked a factual basis, the UA charges remain, which would independently support denial of reenlistment and the separation code you received. The Board, therefore, did not consider this statement in making its decision. 

Regarding your separation medical examination, the Board noted that the document does contain a signature as part of a stamped statement that “this physical administratively reviewed for completeness and accuracy,” even though block 82 was unsigned, which appears to serve the same function as that intended by block 82. If you were injured in the days between the examination and your discharge, there is no evidence upon which the Board can change the record, such as post-service diagnoses, treatment records or medical opinions. The Board, thus, discerned no material error or injustice in your separation examination. 

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,