DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 1635-21 Ref: Signature Date Dear Petitioner: This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Section 1552 of Title 10, United States Code. After careful and conscientious consideration of relevant portions of your naval record and your application, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found the evidence submitted 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 7 July 2021. The names and votes of the panel members 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 the 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, to include the 25 July 2018 guidance from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness regarding equity, injustice or clemency determinations (Wilkie Memo). You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 23 February 1987. On 16 July 1987, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for an unauthorized absence totaling 32 days. On 21 July 1987, you were notified that you were being recommended for administrative discharge from the Navy because of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. The notification advised that if separation was approved, the least favorable description of service authorized in your case would be under other than honorable (OTH) conditions. You were advised of, and waived, your procedural rights, including your right to consult with and be represented by military counsel, and your right to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB). Your commanding officer (CO) then forwarded your administrative separation package to the separation authority (SA) recommending administrative discharge from the Navy with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service. The SA approved the CO’s recommendation and directed your OTH discharge by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. On 6 August 1987, you were so discharged. The Board carefully considered all potentially mitigating factors to determine whether the interests of justice warrant relief in your case in accordance with the Wilkie Memo. These included, but were not limited to, your desire to upgrade your discharge, to change your narrative reason for separation and separation code, your post service accomplishments, and your assertion that you enlisted in the Navy to join the nuclear program, and your recruiter assured you that you would be able to join the program; however, prior to departing for basic training you were informed you would not be able to enter the program. You contend that you sought counsel from a “Rear Admiral Chaplin,” whom advised you to go “AWOL” for a period of less than thirty days, and to leave your identification and possessions behind, which would indicate to the command that you intended to return. The Chaplin explained to you that you would receive a general discharge and it would automatically change to an honorable discharge after 6 to 12 months. You further assert that upon your return from your period of unauthorized absence, you were shocked that your command initiated administrative separation proceedings; you felt bullied by your command and believed that you would receive a court-martial if you sought legal counsel before signing your acknowledgement of the separation proceedings. Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief. Specifically, the Board determined that your misconduct, as evidenced by an NJP for an extended period of unauthorized absence, outweighed these mitigating factors. Accordingly, given the totality of the circumstances, the Board determined that your request does not merit relief. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon 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, 7/20/2021 Executive Director