Docket No: 8319-19 
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 19 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, together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of your naval record, as well as applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 
 
You reenlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 23 July 1985.  On 16 November 1985, you began a period of unauthorized absence (UA) that continued until you surrendered on 4 February 1986.  On 17 March 1986, you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) for violating Articles 86 (UA) and 112a (wrongful use of marijuana) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  You were sentenced to forfeiture of pay, confinement, and reduction in rank to E-1.  On 24 April 1986, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for wrongful possession and use of marijuana and drunk and disorderly conduct.  You were awarded forfeiture of pay, restriction, and extra duties.  On 7 May 1986, an evaluation determined you were not drug or alcohol dependent.  On 9 May 1986, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.  After being afforded all of your procedural rights, you waived them, and your case was forwarded to the separation authority for review.  Your commanding officer recommended that you receive an other than 
honorable (OTH) discharge and the separation authority approved your separation from the Navy.  On 6 June 1986, you were discharged with an OTH characterization of service. 
 
You request the Board upgrade your discharge; however, you did not specify the characterization of service you are seeking.  You assert that you and others were harassed while stationed on the USS .  In support of your petition, you attached a personal statement.  You enlisted in 1978 and served on the USS .  After you got out of the Navy, you had a good job, but then the job market changed, and you decided to reenlist and try to become a Warrant Officer.  You were stationed on the USS .  You claim you had the nickname “ ” and you were “kinda a legend.”  You claim you were mistreated, threatened with being pushed down stairs or off the flight deck, it took a toll on you, and you went UA.  Eventually you returned and were punished.  One night you went out and were in “the wrong place at the wrong time when a fight broke out” and were escorted back to the ship by MPs and given a urine test.  You state you were wrong to go UA, but the Navy deprived you of your dream of becoming an officer.  Lastly you state you were honorably discharged from the Army in 1975 and the Navy in 1983. 
 
The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your record of service and contentions and concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change to your discharge given your misconduct.  The Board noted that you provided no evidence to support your contentions of harassment and threats.  Absent such evidence, the Board relied upon the presumption of regularity and presumed that the officials acted in accordance with governing law/policy and in good faith.  Further, there is no provision of law or in Navy regulations that allows for an upgrade in the characterization of service solely due to the passage of time. 
 
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, 
 
6/23/2020