DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 1689-21 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 2 August 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 19 August 1980. On 15 March 1984, you were convicted by general court-martial (GCM) of robbery. You were sentenced to a reduction in paygrade, a period of confinement, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD). On 14 September 1984, a Neuropsychiatric Evaluation relayed that you stated that while you were in the , you witnessed a person being “mugged.” You reported that you had been drinking and, after observing three other people beating up and robbing another person, you fled. You noted that you were accused of aiding and abetting in the robbery of the other person. You denied that you were involved in the event, except as an observer. At that time, there was no psychiatric diagnosis determination made. On 18 September 1984, you requested clemency and to be restored to full duty. On 25 August 1984, you were, released from confinement and restored to full duty. On 19 February 1985, no clemency was granted, and you were placed on mandatory appellate leave awaiting your discharge. On 20 June 1988, you received your BCD. 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 statement that the year was 1984, the judge and jury was comprised of older white officers, not your peers, and it was your first, and only run-in that you had with the law, civilian or military. You assert that you made a terrible mistake after a day of drinking. You were a lifer dog, squared away Sailor, and had just gotten your security clearance for sub-duty. Additionally, you further assert that you were not given a chance to redeem yourself, and discharge unjust for being a first offender. 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 your GCM conviction for a very serious offenses 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, 8/11/2021 Executive Director