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 19 December 2019.  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 began a period of active duty on 1 August 1989.  In March 2009, while serving as a chief (E-7) at ), you failed to order a sufficient number of E-4 to E-5 enlisted examinations for the squadron’s eligible personnel in the rate of Aviation Electronics Technician.  To hide the failure, you created duplicate examinations, administered them in an unauthorized fashion and created false examination serial numbers.  The advancement examinations were declared invalid.  You received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 27 May 2010 for dereliction of duty for your failure pertaining to the advancement exams.  Additionally, the recommendation for your advancement to senior chief was withdrawn.  Commanding Officer,  also recommended that you be detached for cause (DFC); on 26 July 2010, the Navy Personnel Command approved your DFC for substandard performance.  In January 2011, you reported to wearing the grade insignia of senior chief and continued to wear the senior chief insignia until May 2011.  In November 2011, you negotiated orders to , and doctored two of your evaluations by deleting reference to NJP for eligibility and qualification for the  security clearance process.  In July 2012, a Special Agent of  questioned you as part of an investigation into your impersonation of a senior chief petty officer while assigned to .  You made two false statements to the Special Agent: first, that you received a frocking letter from  and second, that you were unaware until May 2011 of the revocation of your advancement recommendation.  On 15 January 2013, you were found guilty at special court-martial by military judge alone, pursuant to your pleas, of two specifications of attempted larceny, willful dereliction of duty, five specifications of making a false official statement, four specifications of making a false claims, and impersonating a senior chief petty officer.  The guilty findings of attempted larceny pertained to an attempt to steal US currency in the form of OHA, military property of a value of $62,700 over two years and to steal US currency in the form of OHA, military property of a value of $72,000 over two years.  You were sentenced to a bad conduct discharge (BCD), confinement for 10 months, reduction in rank, and forfeiture of 2/3 pay per month for 10 months.  On 30 December 2013, the Navy and Marine Corps Appellate Leave Activity approved the sentence to include the BCD.  On 16 January 2014, you were discharged from the Navy with a BCD, on the basis of your special court-martial conviction. 
 
You request an upgrade to your discharge characterization from a BCD to a general discharge.  Furthermore, you ask for a military retirement.  You contend that the punishment you received was too harsh and that other individuals have committed far worse misconduct than you.  You ask that your 20 plus years of service to your country be taken into account.  You also seek a portion of military retirement due to your dedication and performance during the entirety of your career.  You note that there is no excuse for what happened, but that you learned from your mistake and never looked back.  You are currently employed by   and work as an English teacher.  You also state that you have remarried. 
 
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, including your 23 years, 9 months, and 17 days of active duty service as reflected on your Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214).  The Board noted that you are a contributing member to your community and have a family.  The Board concluded, however, that your situation is not one in which clemency is appropriate because of the seriousness and duration of your misconduct.  The Board considered that following your NJP and your DFC, you were given the opportunity to continue your Naval career.  The Board found that rather than redeem yourself, you continued a pattern of misconduct by wearing the rank of senior chief without authorization, making false official statements, falsifying your evaluations for purposes of successfully passing a security screening and attempting to steal OHA on two separate occasions.  The Board determined that your BCD is supported by the nature and the duration of your misconduct as reflected in your special court-martial conviction.  The Board found that neither an upgrade nor an award of military retirement is appropriate. 
 
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.