Docket No: 5423-19 
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 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, 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 on 16 September 1991.  On 18 May 1992, a special court-martial (SPCM) convicted you of two specifications of unauthorized absence (UA) totaling 55 days, three specifications of possessing a false pass, and receiving stolen property.  You were sentenced to confinement for three months, forfeiture of pay, reduction to E-1, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD).  After the BCD was approved at all levels of review, on 25 June 1993, you were discharged. 
 
The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade your discharge and contentions that you were promised a discharge upgrade after so much time had passed, you were young and stupid, and you went UA after hearing about the death of your brother.  The Board also noted your contentions that you would like to apply for a veteran’s card and you have been a good citizen, dedicated American, and a humble servant since discharge.   
 
In regard to your contention that you were promised a discharge upgrade after so much time had passed, the Board noted that there is no provision in law or regulations that allows for re-characterization of a discharge automatically due solely to the passage of time.  In regard to your contention that you were young and stupid, the Board noted that the evidence of record did not show that you were not responsible for your conduct or that you should not be held accountable for your actions.  In regard to your contention that you went UA after hearing about the death of your brother, the Board noted that there is no evidence in your record, and you submitted none, to support your contention.  In regard to your contention that you would like to apply for a veteran’s card, whether or not you are eligible for benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) is a matter under the cognizance of the DVA, and you should contact the nearest office of the DVA concerning your right to apply for benefits.  If you have been denied benefits, you should appeal that denial under procedures established by the DVA.  Regarding your contention that since discharge you have been a good citizen, dedicated American, and a humble servant, the Board noted while commendable, your misconduct and SPCM conviction outweighed your desire to upgrade your discharge. 
 
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,