Docket No: 4596-19                                           
Ref: Signature date 

Dear  
 
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 7 November 2019.  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 reenlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 21 February 1989.  On 28 July 1995, while under investigation and pending potential additional court-martial charges, you began a period of unauthorized absence (UA) that continued until you surrendered on 7 August 1995.  You again absented yourself without authorization 28 – 30 November 1995, 11 – 13 December 1995, and 8 – 18 January 1996.  On 8 March 1996, you began a fifth period of UA that continued until you were apprehended by civilian authorities on 26 August 1996.  You were determined to be a flight risk and placed in pretrial confinement pending special court-martial.  You were charged with desertion, UA, missing movement, dereliction of duty, and larceny.  On 4 September 1996, you requested a good of the service separation in lieu of trial by court-martial (GOS/SILT).  You admitted guilt to all pending charges and acknowledged that you would discharged with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service.  Subsequently, through detailed defense counsel, you attempted to withdraw your GOS/SILT request.  However, the separation authority denied that request and, on 19 December 1996, you were discharged with an OTH characterization of service.  On 13 August 1997, you petitioned the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) to upgrade your discharge to honorable.  On 2 December 1998, the NDRB informed you of their decision that your discharge was proper as issued and that no change was warranted. 
 
You request the Board upgrade your discharge.  You assert that you regretted all of the unfortunate circumstances that led to your OTH discharge.  The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors in your case, including your record of service and contentions.  However, the Board concluded that these factors were insufficient to warrant a change to your discharge given your admitted misconduct of desertion, UA totaling 195 days, missing movement, dereliction, and larceny.  The Board noted that you provided no additional evidence to support your contentions.  Absent of such evidence, the Board relied upon the presumption of regularity and presumed that the officials acted in accordance with governing law/policy and in good faith.  Further, there is no provision of law or in Navy regulations that allows for recharacterization of service due solely to the passage of time. 
 
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.