Docket No: 8377-19/                                          
           9646-16
Ref: Signature Date                                                                                        
                                                                                                                    
 
Dear Mr.: 
 
This letter is in reference to your reconsideration request dated 28 August 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 new evidence not previously considered, the Board found it in the interest of justice to review your application.  A three-member panel of the Board sitting in executive session on 23 September 2020 has carefully examined your current request. 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, relevant portions of your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 
 
You presented as new evidence a personal statement.  After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board determined that the documentation that you provided, even though not previously considered by the Board, was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. 
 
In regard to your contentions that your enlisted performance evaluation marks increased in three separate areas during the period from 13 January 1989 to 27 June 1990, and you were recommended for Mess Management Specialist Third Class on 31 January 1990, the Board noted that a Sailor’s service is characterized at the time of discharge based on performance during the current enlistment.  In regard to your contention that you went into an unauthorized absence (UA) status and failed to provide a urine sample because sexual advances were made toward you and you did not want a gay person watching you give a urine sample; and your contention that that you missed restricted muster and failed to be at your appointed place of duty was due to you drinking and being afraid of getting hurt, the Board noted that there is no evidence in your record, and you submitted none, to support your contention.  With regard to your contention that you need Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA) benefits, the Board noted that whether or not 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 reconsideration petition 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 the absence of new matters 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,