Docket No: 4636-19 
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 28 August 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, policies.   
 
Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined a personal appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the Board determined a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. 
 
You enlisted in the Navy on 13 January 1997.  On 13 March 1998, you received nonjudicial punishment for two instances of unauthorized absence (UA) totaling three days.  On 10 June 2000, you began a period of UA which ended when you surrendered on 27 February 2001.  On 28 February 2001, you submitted a written request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial for the UA period.  Prior to submitting this request, you declined an opportunity to confer with a qualified military lawyer, at which time you would have been advised of your rights and warned of the probable adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge.  You also declined an opportunity to submit a statement for consideration.  Your request was granted, and your Commanding Officer was directed to issue an other than honorable (OTH) discharge for the good of the service.  As a result of this action, you were spared the stigma of a court-martial conviction, as well as the potential penalties of a punitive discharge.  On 22 March 2001, you were discharged. 
 
The Board carefully reviewed your application, weighed all potentially mitigating factors, and considered your contention that you experienced extreme depression while serving aboard the USS NASSAU due to the “strain placed on [your] marriage by arduous sea duty.”  The Board further considered your contention that, in the months prior to the events that led to your discharge, you reached out for help but your “chain of command did not sufficiently assist.”  The Board also considered your contention that “aside from these deviations,” your character of service could be described as “exemplary.”  You contend you were often “cited by leadership as an example of a sailor who turned himself around following a blemish in the service.”  Additionally, the Board considered your regret, your acceptance of responsibility, and your explanation that you were “not in the right frame of mind,” as well as your contention that with counseling, you could have made a career of the Navy.  The Board, applying liberal consideration and noting you did not submit any documentation or advocacy letters to be considered for clemency, did not find evidence of an error or injustice that warrants upgrading your characterization of service.  Finally, the Board noted you received a benefit from being allowed to separate with an undesirable characterization of service instead of risking greater punishment at a court-martial.  The Board discerned no impropriety or inequity in your discharge. 
 
Finally, you also requested a correction to block 14 of your DD 214, in that “AVINONICS” should be “AVIONICS.”  The Board noted that you should contact the Department of the Navy, Navy Personnel Command (BUPERS), Sailor Assistance Center, Code Pers-312F, 5720 Integrity Drive, Millington, TN 38055-3120 to request that administrative corrections. 
 
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,  


Executive Director