Docket No: 6012-19 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 6 January 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 served your final period of enlistment from 21 January 1990 through 20 February 1998. Your Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) reflects that you served a total of 17 years and 1 month. On 5 February 1998, shortly before your discharge, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 121 (larceny in that you did, on 13 August 1997, steal five bottles of cologne, and on 2 September 1997, steal compact discs, a bottle of orange juice, and a bottle of detergent) and Article 92 (in that you violated a lawful order issued by Commanding Officer, , by wrongfully entering the . In your application to the Board, you contend that you were twice falsely accused of shoplifting and discharged with a general characterization of service after 17 years in the Navy. The Board noted that your available military record does not contain your full administrative separation package, but based on the timing of your NJP and your discharge date, it appears that you waived your right to appear before an administrative separation board. You were discharged from the Navy within the same month as your NJP. On 20 February 1998, while holding the rank of second class petty officer (E-5), you were discharged from military service on the basis of a Pattern of Misconduct, and received a general characterization of service and a reentry (RE) code of RE-4. In your application to the Board, you request an upgrade to your discharge from general to honorable, a change to your narrative reason for separation, and an amendment to your dates of service to allow you to apply for and receive military retirement. You provided an explanation of the circumstances surrounding the shoplifting charges, and contend that you were falsely accused. You also assert that there was never any proof of intent, that the first allegation was the result of a misunderstanding and the second allegation was not supported by evidence because the alleged stolen property was not found in your possession. You also note the orders violation pertained to your entry into the cleaners at the to pick up uniforms. You contend that even if the misconduct had been supported by the evidence, the “pattern of misconduct” did not rise to the level of misconduct that warranted separation of an otherwise outstanding Sailor with over 17 years of service. You also detail your struggles with depression and alcohol abuse following your discharge, and indicate that you have participated in programs such as the with great success. Finally, you provide character letters and letters of recommendation in conjunction with your application. The Board, in its review of your entire application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, including your length of service, your personal circumstances including your wife’s deployment and the fact that you were the sole caregiver for your toddler at the time of the shoplifting allegations, and your claim that your separation and general characterization of service were unduly harsh. In making its determination, the Board noted the absence of your administrative separation package from your available record. The Board also noted that you did not provide a copy of the administrative separation package, nor did you claim that you were subjected to an unjust or erroneous administrative separation process. Accordingly, the Board applied the presumption of regularity to your situation. The Board considered that your commanding officer had the authority to initiate administrative separation processing against you on the basis of a pattern of misconduct, and that your two allegations of shoplifting were sufficient grounds to establish a pattern. Second, the Board considered that you likely waived your right to appear before an administrative separation board, thereby accepting the general characterization of service. The Board reviewed your personal circumstances at the time of the misconduct and noted your tremendous growth and progress following your discharge. Nonetheless, the Board found that the seriousness of two instances of shoplifting could not be overcome and that the general characterization on the basis of a Pattern of Misconduct was neither erroneous nor unjust. Furthermore, the Board determined that constructive credit by way of a change to your service dates to establish retirement eligibility was not appropriate given that you were separated on the basis of misconduct prior to reaching the time in service criteria for retirement. 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.