DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 

Docket No: 1653-21 

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 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 June 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, 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). 

The Board determined that your personal appearance, with or without counsel, would not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. 

You enlisted in the U.S. Navy and began a period of active duty on 19 April 1976.  On 4 April 1980, you were released from active duty with an honorable characterization of service and transferred to the Naval Reserve with no requirement for reserve participation.  On 19 February 1982, you returned to active service and served without disciplinary action until you absented yourself from your unit on 3 December 1985, causing you to miss ship’s movement. Subsequently, on 11 December 1985, you received NJP for being in an unauthorized absence (UA) status, missing ship’s movement, and for an additional charge of defraud by writing a worthless check in the amount of $100.00.  On 10 April 1986, you referred yourself to the naval medical clinic for increasing frustration and inability to control your behavior.  You were given a provisional diagnosis of situational anxiety and depression.  The medical officer noted your alcohol consumption; however, you denied any drug and alcohol abuse. 

On 18 March 1986, you were given a counseling entry concerning your violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and advised that you were being retained; however, any further deficiencies in your performance or conduct would result in administrative discharge.  On 19 May 1986, you entered the Naval Alcohol Rehabilitation Center for alcohol treatment.  On 25 May 1986, you were in a UA status, thereby terminating your participation in alcohol treatment. You returned on 13 June 1986 and subsequently received NJP for being UA, disrespectful in language, and failing to obey a lawful order.  On 23 August 1986, a psychiatric evaluation was conducted based on your “self-destructing behavior and chronic alcoholism.” The medical officer noted your provisional diagnoses of borderline personality disorders and chronic alcoholism.  Your medical record was further evaluated on 2 September 1986 and the medical officer determined that you were drug and alcohol dependent; however, there was no evidence of any history of preservice psychiatric problems. 

On 13 September 1986, you absented yourself from your unit until you surrendered on 17 September 1986, and subsequently received NJP for being in a UA status.  On 30 December 1986, you were notified of pending administrative separation by reason of misconduct, specifically commission of a serious offense, at which time, you elected not to consult with counsel and you waived your procedural right to an administrative discharge board.  Further, you were notified of the Commanding Officer’s intent to recommend to the discharge authority that you be discharged with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service.  On 7 January 1987, you were determined to be qualified for separation by an appropriate medical officer. Subsequently, the discharge authority directed discharge with an OTH characterization of service by reason of misconduct.  On 26 January 1987, you were discharged with an OTH characterization of service. 

The Board carefully reviewed your application and 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 characterization of service based on your contentions that you were suffering from undiagnosed and untreated alcoholism, you did not recognize the issues at the time, and you accept responsibility for your actions.  The Board noted your remorse for your actions and the steps you took in achieving sobriety.  The Board further noted your post-service accomplishment of being employed in the defense industry and your service to your local community as a volunteer.  However, based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief.  Specifically, the Board determined that your misconduct 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 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, 
6/15/2021 

Executive Director