Docket No: 4582-19 
Ref:  Signature Date 

 
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 21 September 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 10 October 1990.  During the period from 26 December 1991 to 24 March 1992, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on four occasions for two specifications of failing to obey an order, obtaining services under false pretense, dereliction in the performance of duties, and misbehavior of a sentinel.  Additionally, after each of your first three NJPs, you were counseled and warned, that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action.  On 25 April 1992, you were notified of administrative discharge action by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and due to commission of a serious offense.  You initially failed to elect your right to have your case heard before an administrative discharge board (ADB).  However, on 12 June 1992, you elected to have your case heard before an ADB.  On 29 June 1992, you received a fifth NJP for assault consummated by a battery.  On 31 July 1992, an ADB found that you did commit misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct, but did not commit misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.  The ADB recommended separation with a general discharge.  On 10 August 1992, your commanding officer (CO) forwarded your case to the separation authority concurring with the ADB’s finding that you did commit a pattern of misconduct but non-concurring with the ADB’s finding that you did not commit misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.  Your CO stated in part, that the ADB did not evaluate whether any of the offenses, separately and individually, constituted a serious offense.  The CO believed that several of the offenses were serious offenses (e.g., assault consummated by a battery).  The CO opined that that the ADB erred in not finding that you committed misconduct due to a serious offense, and had the ADB done so, would have recommended the appropriate characterization of other than honorable (OTH) vice General.  The CO recommended you receive an OTH characterization of service.   
 
On 16 August 1992, you unlawfully took Navy Exchange merchandise valued at $33.20.  On 21 August 1992, the CO requested to have your administrative discharge processing held in abeyance pending further disciplinary action and reprocessing.  On 27 August 1992, you received your sixth NJP for larceny.  On 31 August 1992, you were again notified of administrative discharge action due to misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.  After being afforded your procedural rights, you elected to have your case heard before an ADB.  On 16 October 1992, the ADB found that you committed misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct, and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.  The ADB recommended you be separated from the naval service with an OTH discharge.  On 21 October 1992, your case was forwarded to the separation authority concurring with the ADB’s findings and recommendations.  On 31 October 1992, you received a seventh NJP for being absent from appointed place of duty, and being a discredit to the armed forces.  On 4 November 1992, the separation authority directed that you received an OTH discharge due to a pattern of misconduct.  On 12 November 1992, you were discharged from the Navy with an OTH characterization of service. 
 
The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your record of service, and desire to have your characterization of service upgraded.  The Board also considered your assertions that you requested a hearing to prove your case, and on the day of the hearing, your witness was involved in a bike accident that sent him to the hospital.  The hearing went on without your witness and you received an OTH discharge.  The command did not wait until your witness was better and able to testify on your behalf, and proceeded to discharge you.  Further, you assert that you were reunited with your witness after more than 23 years, and he is willing to testify on your behalf if needed.  You have achieved a Bachelor’s Degree in Information and Management, you are a community leader in helping homeless dogs and cats, and you are in the process of getting your Master’s Degree in Business Administration.  You further assert that you are only asking to have your discharge upgraded to general since you believe you were not granted a fair trial.  The Board concluded these factors and assertions were not sufficient to warrant a change to your characterization of service, given your misconduct that resulted in seven NJPs, three of which were after you had been notified of administrative discharge action. 
  
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 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,