Docket No: 5263-19 
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 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 8 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, 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 4 August 1981.  On 2 March 1982, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for an unauthorized absence totaling 35 days.  Unfortunately, your administrative separation documents are not in your electronic service record.  However, based on the information contained on your Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214), you presumably submitted a voluntary written request for an other than honorable (OTH) discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  Prior to submitting this voluntary discharge request, you would have conferred with a military lawyer, you would have been advised of your rights and warned of the probable adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge.  As part of this discharge request, you would have admitted guilt and acknowledged that your characterization of service upon discharge would be other than honorable (OTH).  On 9 February 1983, you were discharged from the naval service with an OTH characterization of service.  The Board noted that on your DD Form 214, the narrative reason for separation is “In Lieu of Court-Martial,” and your separation code is “KFS,” which corresponds to a separation In lieu of Court-Martial administrative discharge. 
 
The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, including your desire to upgrade your discharge.  The Board considered your assertion that you were a naive 19-year-old kid and didn’t understand how important it was to ignore certain distractions from home, and focus on your career in the Navy.  You contend that you allowed the pressures of a newly acquired wife, whom just had your first child, interfere with your decision to stay and fulfill your contract with the Navy. 
 
You also state that you are currently still serving your country working for the Department of , whom you have been employed by for the past 22 years.  The Board commends you for your post-service accomplishment.  The Board relies on a presumption of regularity to support the official actions of public officers and, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary (as is the case at present), will presume that they have properly discharged their official duties.  Accordingly, under the totality of the circumstances, the Board discerned no probable material error or injustice in your characterization of service. 
 
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,