Docket No: 5681-19 
Ref:  Signature Date 
 
 
 
Dear Mr.: 
 
This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Section 1552 of Title 10, United States Code.  After careful and conscientious consideration of relevant portions of your naval record and your application, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found the evidence submitted 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 19 October 2020.  The names and votes of the panel members 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 the 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, and policies, to include the 25 July 2018 guidance from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness regarding equity, injustice or clemency determinations (Wilkie Memo). 
 
On 1 June 1984, you reenlisted in the Navy after serving over four years of honorable service. 
On 25 April 1995, you were notified of administrative discharge by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.  After being afforded your procedural rights, you elected to waive your right to request to have your case heard before an administrative discharge board.  On 27 April 1995, a medical psychologist found you fit for full duty and responsible for your actions in spite of an apparent Adjustment Disorder and Depressed Mood and Partner Relational Problem, which likely had an influence on your declining behavior.  On 1 May 1995, you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of uttering six worthless checks, and fraud against the United States by presenting, for approval or payment, a false or fraudulent claim.  On 3 May 1995, your case was forwarded to the separation authority stating that you amassed over $6800 of non-official charges on a government American Express card, and passed more than 20 bad checks from several different bank accounts totaling over $4000, to area merchants and the Navy Exchange.  It was also noted, that you were able to continue cashing checks at area banks by using checks from one bank to open up an account at a second bank.  By time the second bank caught on, you had moved to a third bank.  Further, during the investigation, you filed a fraudulent travel claim for per diem for four days in which you were on leave and while awaiting trial by SCM; and you continued writing bad checks.  On 10 May 1995, the separation authority directed that you be discharged for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.  On 11 May 1995, you were discharged from the Navy with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service. 
 
The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your record of service, character letter from your wife, prior honorable service, and desire to have your characterization of service upgraded.  The board also considered your contention that your nonjudicial punishment was not supposed to result in a punitive discharge and loss of benefits, and that only a court-martial has the authority to issue a punitive discharge and loss of future benefits.  Additionally, you assert that you never requested a copy of your Certificate of Discharge or Release from Active Duty (DD Form 214) until you needed medical care, and the Veterans Administration told you they needed it.  The Board concluded these factors and assertions were not sufficient to warrant a change to your characterization of service.  Further, the board noted that you did not receive a punitive discharge, rather you were administratively separated due to misconduct, and received and OTH characterization of service.  
   
The Board carefully considered all potentially mitigating factors to determine whether the interests of justice warrant relief in your case in accordance with the Wilkie Memo.  These included, but were not limited to, your desire to upgrade your discharge and your contentions discussed above.  Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief.  Specifically, the Board determined that your repeated misconduct outweighed these mitigating factors.  Accordingly, given the totality of the circumstances, the Board determined that your request does not merit relief.   
 
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,