Docket No: 2433-19 
Date: Ref Signature 


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 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 16 April 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, 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 26 February 1985.  From the period beginning on 17 September 1985 to 14 April 1987 you were counseled on four occasions regarding your misconduct.  On 22 May 1987, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for unauthorized absence (UA).  On 20 October 1987, you were counseled regarding your misconduct.  On 30 October 1987, you received NJP for two specifications of uttering worthless checks.  On 2 November 1987, you were counseled regarding your misconduct.  On 21 January 1988, you received NJP for uttering worthless checks.  You went on an extended period of UA for 193 days from 10 February 1988 until your apprehension by civil authorities on 21 August 1988.  As a result of the foregoing, on 7 September 1988,  you submitted a good of the service (GOS) request to avoid trial by special court-martial for the foregoing offenses.  On 27 September 1988, your GOS request for discharge was determined to be sufficient in law and fact.  On 28 September 1988, the discharge authority approved and directed your discharge with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service by reason of separation in lieu of trial by court-martial.  On 21 October 1988, pursuant to your request, you were discharged with an OTH characterization of service to escape trial by court-martial.  You subsequently petitioned the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) requesting an upgrade to your discharge.  On 7 April 1999, the NDRB denied your petition and determined that your discharge is proper as issued and that no change is warranted.  

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade your discharge, and your request for addition of sea service, and overseas time to your discharge documents.  You contend you were informed of an upgrade to your discharge and you have not yet received it.  The Board considered your contentions and noted no evidence to support adjustment to your sea service and foreign service time.  Further, the Board noted there is no evidence in your record, and you did not provide evidence, to reflect that you were previously granted any upgrade to you characterization of service.  The Board concluded that the severity of your misconduct, for which you escaped trial by being granted a GOS separation, outweighed your current 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 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.