DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 2668-19 Ref: Signature Date This is in reference to your application of 15 February 2018 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 2 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, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 22 September 1989. On 4 January 1991, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for absent without leave, leaving your appointed place of duty, willfully failing to make wake-up calls and sleeping on post. On 17 May 1991, you received your second NJP for failure to obey a lawful order and false official statement. On 17 May 1991, you were notified of an administrative action to separate you from the naval service because of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. You acknowledged that if separation is approved, your characterization of service may be under other than honorable conditions. You were advised of, and waived, your procedural rights, including your right to consult with and be represented by military counsel, and your right to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB). Your commanding officer (CO) recommended that you be administratively discharged from the naval service with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service. The discharge authority approved the CO’s recommendation and directed that you be administratively discharged from the naval service with an OTH characterization of service for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. Prior to your administrative discharge, you received your third NJP for two specifications of unauthorized absence, two specifications of breaking restriction, wrongfully drinking alcohol while in a restricted status, and with intent to deceive, sign an official fire watch logbook. On 8 July 1991, you were so discharged. The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors in your case, including your desire to change your separation authority, separation code, reenlistment code, narrative reason for separation and your desire to upgrade your discharge. The Board considered your contentions as noted in your statement such as, (1) you do not remember signing a waiver of a separation board; (2) you requested to seek legal counsel but was denied; (3) you did not commit violent misconduct, unlawfully use a controlled substance or possess drug paraphernalia or sexual misconduct; and (4) since your discharge, you have been a locomotive engineer, loan officer, insurance agent, regional director and you currently own Brokerage LLC. Regarding your contention that you were not given due process concerning your procedural right to consult with legal counsel, or to have your case heard by an ADB, as stated previously your record reflects that you waived your procedural rights. Regarding your contention that you were not separated for a serious offense, the Board noted that, pursuant to naval regulation, a Sailor may be processed for separation if the military or civilian offense warrants separation and a punitive discharge would be authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The Board noted that you received punishment for offenses that warrant separation and a punitive discharge. Additionally, the Board relies on a presumption of regularity to support the official actions of public officers and, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, will presume that they have properly discharged their official duties. Regarding your contention that you were told that your discharge would be automatically upgraded, there is no provision in law or regulations that allows for re-characterization of a discharge automatically after six months, due solely to the passage of time. Under the totality of the circumstances, the Board discerned no probable material error or injustice in 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. Sincerely, 4/18/2020