Docket No: 7161-19 
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 9 September 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. 
 
You enlisted in the Navy on 8 August 1985.  During the period from 28 August 1986 to 26 January 1987, you received non-judicial punishment two times for unauthorized absence (UA), disobeying a lawful order, stealing, and three specifications of absence from appointed place of duty.  Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.  After you waived your rights, your commanding officer (CO) forwarded your case to the separation authority recommending an other than honorable (OTH) discharge by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.  The separation authority approved your CO’s recommendation and directed an OTH discharge due to misconduct.  On 23 February 1987, you were discharged.   
 
The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade your discharge and contentions that other sailors that received Captains Mast for the same incident were allowed to remain in the Navy and you were treated unfairly due to the color of your skin.  The board also noted your contention that 32 years have passed since your discharge and you need Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) benefits.   

In regard to your contentions that other Sailors that received Captains Mast for the same incident were allowed to remain in the Navy and you were treated unfairly due to the color of your skin, the Board noted that there is no evidence in your record, and you submitted none, to support your contention.  The Board also noted that the record shows that you were notified of, and waived your right to consult with counsel, and your right to present your case to an administrative board.  In doing so, you gave up your first and best opportunity to advocate for retention, assistance, or a more favorable characterization of service.  In regard to your contention that 32 years have passed since your discharge, the Board noted that there is no provision in law or regulations that allows for re-characterization of a discharge automatically after 32 years, due solely to the passage of time.  In regard to your contention that you need DVA benefits, please note that whether you are eligible for benefits 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. 
 
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 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,