Docket No: 4742-19 
Ref: Signature date 
 
MR 
 
 
Dear Mr. : 
 
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 6 July 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 enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 1 September 1988.  On 28 April 1990, you received a retention warning for a severe lack of military bearing, military performance, reliability and personal behavior.  On 11 May 1990, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for two specifications of Unauthorized Absence (UA).  On 9 June 1990, you received NJP for three specifications of UA, and Disobeying a Lawful Command.  On 27 August 1990, you received NJP for five specifications of UA, Dereliction of Duties and Sleeping on Watch.  On 20 September 1990, you received NJP for five specifications of UA.  Subsequently, on 29 August 1990, you were notified that you were being considered for administrative separation by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and a pattern of misconduct.  On 31 August 1990, you waived both your right to counsel and your right to an administrative board.  On 13 September 1990, your case was forwarded to the separation authority for review, with a recommendation from you your Commanding Officer that you be administratively discharged with an Under Other than Honorable (OTH) characterization of service.  On 4 October 1990, the Separation Authority concurred with your CO’s recommendation and directed that you be separated with an OTH characterization of service.  You were so discharged on 29 October 1990. 
 
The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade your discharge, and assertions that you had undiagnosed Sleep Apnea, but had no sleeping issues prior to the Navy.  The Board also considered your assertions that you were diagnosed with Sleep Apnea in 2003 and your contention that no disciplinary issues would have happened without Sleep Apnea.  However, the Board concluded these factors and assertions were not sufficient to warrant a change to your discharge given your misconduct, which resulted in several NJPs.  The Board also noted you waived your procedural rights in connection with your administrative separation.  By doing so, you gave up your first, and best, opportunity to advocate for retention or a more favorable characterization of service.  Moreover, you also gave up your right to have an attorney explain the consequences of administrative separation. 
 
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,