DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 

Docket No: 7804-19 2999-14 6811-03 
Ref: Signature Date 

Dear

This letter is in reference to your reconsideration request dated 25 July 2019.  You previously petitioned the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) and were advised that your application had been disapproved.  Your case was reconsidered in accordance with Board procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Sec’y of the Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004).  After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.  Consequently, your application has been denied. 

Because your application was submitted with a new statement that was not previously considered, the Board found it in the interest of justice to review your most recent application. In this regard, your current request was carefully examined by a three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, on 24 February 2020. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, available portions of your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.
 
In your original petition to the Board, you contended that your misconduct was due to your youth and occurred a long time ago.  In your second petition to the Board, you submitted no new information and your petition was administratively closed. In your current petition, you request, through counsel, that the Board upgrade your characterization of service to general (under honorable conditions) and provide any other appropriate relief.  You contend that you unfairly received an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service because it was arbitrary, capricious, and unsupported by substantial evidence. In support of your petition, your attorney attached a brief and excerpts from your official record.  You claim that you volunteered to train with special forces to rescue the American hostages being held at the embassy in Tehran, Iran.  During the mission, you witnessed the crash of two military aircraft resulting in the death of military personnel. You claim that superiors told you to use alcohol to cope with the loss.  You further state that, in October 1982, while dealing with your grief, you had a lapse in judgment, walked away during training, and subsequently received nonjudicial punishment (NJP).  You also contend that due to drinking, you received a total of five NJPs.  When you were pending special court-martial charges, you requested a separation in lieu of trial (SILT) for the good of the service (GOS), and contend that you did not understand you would receive an OTH. Additionally, you assert none of your offenses were serious.  Lastly, you state that since your discharge, you received a BA and MA, and that you volunteer as a Peer Educator. 

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your record of service and contentions.  However, the Board concluded that these factors were insufficient to warrant a change to your discharge given your misconduct.  The Board noted that you provided no evidence to support your contention that you participated in Operation Eagle Claw on 24 April 1980. Additionally, the command chronology for your unit from 1 January 1980 through 30 June 1980 indicates that you were deployed to an exercise “TEMPO CAPER.” Additionally, the Board noted that you received a Meritorious Mast for your assignment to the dining facility from 2 March 1980 to 4 April 1980.  Regarding your SILT/GOS, paragraph three of that documents states that you fully understood that your discharge would be OTH and that, as a result, you may be deprived of virtually all rights as a Veteran and may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life.  At the time of your special court-martial, you were pending charges for four specifications of unauthorized absence totaling in excess of a month.  You consulted with legal counsel and elected to request to be discharged with an OTH characterization of service to escape trial by court-martial.  In accordance with your request, you were so discharged. The Board also noted your post-service achievements; however, there is no provision of law or in Navy regulations that allows for recharacterization of service due solely to the passage of time.
 
It is regretted that the circumstances of your reconsideration petition are such that favorable action cannot be taken again.  You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the submission of new and material evidence.  New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board.  In the absence of sufficient new and material evidence for reconsideration, the decision of the Board is final, and your only recourse would be to seek relief, at no cost to the Board, from a court of appropriate jurisdiction. 

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,