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 11 June 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, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 
 
Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. 
 
You enlisted in the Navy on 22 July 2014.  On 31 May 2016, you went to non-judicial punishment (NJP) for insubordinate conduct toward a petty officer and for violating UCMJ Article 134 the general article.  On 21 December 2016, you went to NJP for unauthorized absence, insubordinate conduct toward a petty officer, and disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer.  On your evaluation for the period ending 14 November 2017, there is a notation that you were found guilty of insubordinate conduct toward a non-commissioned officer on 6 July 2017. 
 
Your command initiated an administrative discharge action by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.  Unfortunately, the administrative separation documentation is not in your service record.  However, the Board relied on a presumption of regularity to support the official actions of public officers.  In the absence of substantial evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by you, and given the narrative reason for separation and corresponding separation code as stated on your DD Form 214, the Board presumed that you were properly processed for separation using “notification procedures” and discharged from the Navy for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.  The least favorable characterization of service you could have received with notification procedures was General (Under Honorable Conditions) (“GEN”).  On 14 November 2017, you were discharged from the Navy with a GEN characterization of service and assigned an “RE-4” reentry code.  On 5 March 2019, the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) denied you relief. 
 
The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, including your contentions that included, but were not limited to:  (a) that you disagree with the NDRB ruling, (b) when you were granted permission to work in other areas like deck and engineering department you received awards and accomplishments, (c) the pattern of misconduct on your record has diminished you as you continue your life as a veteran, (d) that you were good for the Navy, and (e) the issue you have is that you were discharged based on how you were viewed by the department and not how you were seen as a sailor throughout the whole command.  However, the Board found that your contentions and mitigating factors were not sufficient to warrant upgrading your discharge, changing your reentry code, or granting any other relief in your case given the overall seriousness of your misconduct and disregard for good order and discipline while on active duty.  The Board determined that significant negative aspects of your conduct or performance outweighed any positive aspects of your overall military record.  Accordingly, the Board found that your pattern of misconduct warranted your receipt of a GEN discharge. The Board concluded that your current characterization does not reflect an error or injustice that merits corrective action. 
 
Additionally, the Board reviewed your application under the recent guidance provided in the Under Secretary of Defense’s memorandum dated 25 July 2018 entitled, “Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations” (USD Memo).  The purpose of the USD Memo is to ease the process for veterans seeking redress and assist Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records “in determining whether relief is warranted on the basis of equity, injustice, or clemency.”  The USD Memo noted that “increasing attention is being paid to…the circumstances under which citizens should be considered for second chances and the restoration of rights forfeited,” and that “BCM/NRs have the authority to upgrade discharges or correct military records to ensure fundamental fairness.”  The USD Memo sets clear standards and principles to guide BCM/NRs in application of their equitable relief authority, and further explains that boards shall consider a number of factors to determine whether to grant relief.  However, even in light of the USD Memo, the Board still concluded that, given the totality of the circumstances and your pattern of discreditable involvement with military authorities, your request does not merit relief. 
 
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,