Dear,  
 
This letter is in reference to your reconsideration request dated 15 October 2019.  You previously petitioned the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) and were advised that your application had been disapproved.  Your case was reconsidered in accordance with Board procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Sec’y of the Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004).  After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.  Consequently, your application has been denied.  
 
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 February 2020.  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.   
 
The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve an upgrade to your characterization of service.  You assert that you don’t remember receiving non-judicial punishment prior to 2002 and would never have committed an unauthorized absence offense.  Further, you argue that, but for your deviated septum, you would have remained in the Navy.  Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief.  First, the Board found evidence in your military record that non-judicial punishment was imposed on you for unauthorized absence and three specifications of insubordination on 7 December 2001.  This was in addition to the non-judicial punishments imposed on 18 April 2002 and 5 September 2002.  Based on documented evidence of your misconduct, the Board found that you committed the offenses that formed the basis for your administrative separation from the Navy.  Second, despite records that show you suffered from a deviated septum and struggled to use a gas mask due to a phobia, the Board determined you were properly processed and separated for a pattern of misconduct.  In the Board’s opinion, the three non-judicial punishments document a pattern of misconduct that demonstration your inability to follow orders and general lack of respect for authority.  They felt this was sufficient to show you lacked potential for further naval service despite your belief that you would have continued in the Navy except for your deviated septum condition.  Third, the Board found the misconduct you committed in the Navy to be serious.  The Board noted you were punished for at least seven instances of insubordination, disrespect, and orders violation during the approximately two years you were in the Navy.  Since these offenses qualify for a punitive discharge under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Board concluded they were serious departures from conduct expected of a service member.  Based on this finding, the Board determined your misconduct met the criteria for an Other than Honorable characterization of service.  While the Board considered your post-discharge good character, they felt it was insufficient mitigation evidence to support an upgrade to your characterization of service.  After considering the seriousness of your misconduct, the number of offenses you committed, and the relative brevity of your active duty service, the Board felt the preponderance of the evidence supports your assigned characterization of service and your post-discharge good character is insufficient to mitigate your misconduct sufficiently to merit an upgrade. Accordingly, the Board found insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant a change to your record.   
 
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 issue(s) involved.  Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record.  
 
It is regretted that the circumstances of your reconsideration petition 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 the absence of new matters for reconsideration, the decision of the Board is final, and your only recourse would be to seek relief, at no cost to the Board, from a court of appropriate jurisdiction. 
 
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.