DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 8954-19 Ref: Signature Date Dear : This is in reference to your application of 9 September 2019 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 that 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 23 March 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. Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance, with or without counsel, would not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the Board determined a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 23 January 1990. On 10 May 1991, you were counseled for failure to complete required training and advised that further deficiencies in performance or conduct could result in administrative separation and judicial proceedings. On 28 September 1991, you began a period of unauthorized absence (UA) that continued until 30 September 1991. On 10 October 1991, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for UA. You were again warned about the potential for administrative separation and judicial proceedings. You were UA again from 2 to 4 November 1991, 6 January to 5 February 1992, and 10 February to 15 April 1992. On 24 April 1992, you requested a good of the service separation in lieu of trial by court-martial (SILT). On 5 May 1992, your SILT request was approved. On 8 May 1992, you were discharged with an under other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service. You request that the Board upgrade your discharge to general (under honorable conditions). You assert you injured your right knee during physical training in August 1991. Your Chief doubted the validity of your injury and you were not allowed to seek medical treatment for three weeks. The doctor determined you had torn cartilage and needed to wear a full knee brace and have surgery. You were charged with UA every time you visited the doctor. You were restricted to the ship and it was hard to get around on deck, get in and out of rack, and shower. After surgery, you were allowed to go home to recuperate. At home, you observed the deteriorating health of your 79-year old grandfather who raised you and was living alone. You state: “My heart was breaking and I couldn’t tear myself away from the only father I had known and loved. I did not return to in a timely manner and was considered AWOL.” After you secured better living conditions for your grandfather, you turned yourself in to face the consequences. Back at your command you contend that you felt unappreciated, unwanted, and despised. At home you were loved, sheltered, and protected. You state that the experience left you broken and depressed, and you turned to alcohol to cope with the hurt and pain. Lastly, you contend that after many years passed, you discovered that you were not the only African-American Sailor treated poorly on the at that time. In support of your petition, you attached three character letters. 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. Absent of such evidence, the Board relied upon the presumption of regularity and presumed that the officials acted in accordance with governing policy and in good faith. Additionally, 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 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,