DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
             
Docket No: 2157-19              
Ref: Signature Date 

This is in reference to your application of 5 February 2019 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 that 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 March 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. 

You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 18 February 1992.  During the period from 3 August 1992 to 23 September 1993, you received three non-judicial punishments (NJP) for six specifications of absence from your appointed place of duty, unauthorized absence (UA) totaling two days, and wrongful use of marijuana.  You were also convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of three specifications of UA totaling three days and five specifications of dereliction of duty.  Subsequently, you were notified of an administrative action to separate you from the naval service for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and drug abuse. After you waived your rights to consult with counsel and present your case to an administrative discharge board, your commanding officer (CO) recommended that you be separated with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense/drug abuse.  On 28 October 1993, civil authorities charged you with failure to return a rental car.  You served 27 days in civil confinement prior to the charges being dismissed.  On 3 November 1993, the discharge authority approved your CO’s recommendation and directed an OTH discharge due to misconduct.  On 3 January 1994, you were so discharged. 

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors in your case, including your desire to upgrade your discharge and contentions that you were not given an opportunity to seek counsel and a Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) officer told you that everything was handled wrong.  In this regard, the Board concluded that seriousness of your repeated misconduct and violation of the Navy’s drug policy outweighed your desire to upgrade your discharge. Regarding your contentions that you were not given an opportunity to seek counsel and a SJA officer told you that everything was handled wrong, the Board noted that there is no evidence in your record and you submitted none, to support your contention.  The Board also noted that the record shows that you were notified of and waived your right to present your case to an administrative board (ADB).  

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 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,
 
3/24/2020