Dear : 
 
This 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 28 May 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. 
 
You originally enlisted in the Navy on 11 August 1987.  Your last reenlistment commenced on 3 January 1995 for four years.  During you last enlistment period, on 8 November 1995, you went to non-judicial punishment (NJP) for assault consummated by a battery to your spouse.  You did not appeal your NJP.  On 15 November 1995, you received a “Page 11” counseling/discharge warning documenting your NJP and advising you of consequences for further deficiencies. 
 
On 16 September 1997, you went to a Summary Court-Martial for a period of unauthorized absence lasting 67 days and for missing movement by design of the USS  on 20 May 1997.  As punishment you received a reduction in rank to E-4, forfeitures of pay, and restriction for 60 days. 
 
On 2 October 1997, you were notified that you were being processed for an administrative discharge by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.  You elected your right to present your case to an administrative separation board (Adsep Board). 
 
On 5 November 1997, an Adsep Board convened in your case.  Following the presentation of evidence and witness testimony, the Adsep Board members determined that you had committed misconduct as charged.  Subsequent to the misconduct finding, the Adsep Board members unanimously recommended that you be separated from the Navy with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service.  Your commanding officer concurred with the Adsep Board’s findings and recommendations.  Ultimately, on 8 December 1997, you were discharged from the Navy for misconduct with an OTH characterization of service and assigned an RE-4 reentry code.  On 10 August 1999, the Naval Discharge Review Board determined that your discharge was proper as issued and no change was warranted. 
 
On 1 December 2003, Navy Personnel Command (PERS-312E) issued a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to add the following language to Block 18 of your DD Form 214:  “Continuous Honorable Active Service from 87AUG11 until 95JAN02.”  The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, including your contentions that the added Block 18 language to your DD Form 214 was wrong and not the correct way to do paperwork.  However, the Board found that your contentions and mitigating factors were not sufficient to remove the added Block 18 comments from your DD Form 214 or grant any other relief in your case. 
 
The Board noted that when a service member commits misconduct in a subsequent enlistment, the Block 18 language is customarily placed on the separation DD Form 214 to indicate the service member’s honorable service from their initial enlistment date, up to the date prior to the start of their enlistment where the misconduct subsequently occurred.  In your case, you initially enlisted on 11 August 1987, and your last enlistment without committing misconduct ended on 2 January 1995.  Thus, the Board determined that the added Block 18 comment on the DD Form 215 was proper and in compliance with all Navy directives and policy at the time of your discharge.  Moreover, absent a material error or injustice, the Board generally will not summarily upgrade a discharge solely for the purpose of facilitating VA benefits, or enhancing educational or employment opportunities.  The Board also determined that there was no error or injustice in your discharge, and the Board found that your serious misconduct merited your receipt of an OTH discharge. 
 
Additionally, the Board reviewed your application under the recent guidance provided in the Under Secretary of Defense’s memorandum dated 25 July 2018 entitled, “Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations” (USD Memo).  The purpose of the USD Memo is to ease the process for veterans seeking redress and assist Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records “in determining whether relief is warranted on the basis of equity, injustice, or clemency.”  The USD Memo noted that “increasing attention is being paid to…the circumstances under which citizens should be considered for second chances and the restoration of rights forfeited,” and that “BCM/NRs have the authority to upgrade discharges or correct military records to ensure fundamental fairness.”  The USD Memo sets clear standards and principles to guide BCM/NRs in application of their equitable relief authority, and further explains that boards shall consider a number of factors to determine whether to grant relief, such as positive or negative post-service conduct, including any arrests or convictions.  However, 
even in light of the USD Memo, the Board still concluded that, given the totality of the circumstances, your request does not merit relief. 
 
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,                                                                              
6/30/2020