DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 6189-19 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 26 May 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 reenlisted in the Navy on 21 December 1984. On 29 January 1986, you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) for violating Article 112a (possession and distribution of cocaine) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). You were sentenced to confinement for 60 days, forfeiture of pay for two months, and reduction on rank (RIR). On 19 March 1986, you were released from confinement. On 13 June 1986, you were transferred to Naval Hospital Portsmouth for treatment. On 7 July 1086, you began a period of unauthorized absence (UA) that continued until you surrendered on 23 March 1987. On 30 March 1987, you were diagnosed with a sexually transmitted disease that resulted in decreased vision, and provided care and follow-up treatment. On 27 April 1987, you were convicted by SPCM for violating Article 86 (UA) of the UCMJ. You were sentenced to confinement for 75 days, forfeiture of pay for two months, RIR to E-1, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD). On 21 May 1987, you waived clemency review of your case and were put on appellate leave. On 8 March 1988, appellate review was completed, and the findings and sentence of your court-martial were approved. On 1 April 1988, you were discharged with a BCD characterization of service. On 18 April 1995, the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) informed you of their decision regarding your request to upgrade your discharge to general (under honorable conditions) in order to obtain benefits. The NDRB determined your discharge was proper as issued and no change was warranted. You request that the Board upgrade your discharge; however, you did not specify the characterization of service you are seeking. You assert you were sent to Naval Hospital from Naval Hospital in the middle of the night with only the clothes on your back. You left the hospital because you did not want the recommended treatment for your disease and decreased vision. You state: “I truly felt like a guinea pig. The doctor had me taking steroids and never told me. They told me I was going to have to have a spinal tap and I told him I was not goingto have one.” You state it truly was one of the worst mistakes you ever made and you are still paying for it now. You contend that after your second SPCM you were retained and told you could either wait for an administrative discharge board and try to get a medical discharge, or you could go home and wait to receive an under other than honorable conditions (OTH) discharge. You state: “I let my emotions dictate the decision, which was a bad choice.” The Board was sympathetic to your desire change your characterization of service, but the Board has no authority to set aside a court-martial conviction and must limit its review to determining whether the sentence should be modified as a matter of fairness or clemency. In your case the Board determined no clemency is warranted based on your misconduct of UA for 259 days. The Board in its review discerned no material error or injustice in the discharge. With respect to your contention that you were retained after your second SPCM, the Board noted that your record indicates that you were not, but rather, you received a BCD as part of your sentence. 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,