DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 
Docket No: 2432-21 
Ref: Signature Date 
 
Dear : 

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 28 April 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). 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 Navy and began a period of active duty on 15 December 1998. On 16 December 1999, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for unauthorized absence (UA). You went on a second period of UA from 2 May 2001 until your apprehension by civil authorities on 20 January 2002. As a result of the foregoing, on 25 January 2002, you submitted a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial for the aforementioned period of UA. Subsequently, you waived your right to consult with counsel. Your request for discharge notates that you understood if you were discharged with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service, it might deprive you of veteran’s benefits. On 30 January 2002, your commanding officer recommended approval of your request for discharge in lieu of trial by court martial, with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service. On 14 February 2002, 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 characterization of service. You contend you did not retain counsel. You contend you were directed to sign your discharge documents, which did not contain any agreement to accept an other than honorable characterization of service as it was listed on your commanding officer’s recommendation. The Board considered the statements you provided on your application. Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief. Specifically, your extended period of UA, which resulted in your request for discharge to avoid trial by court martial. With regard to your contentions, the Board noted that when you submitted your request for discharge you declined your right to consult with counsel, and you were sufficiently informed of the possibility of receiving an OTH characterization of service. Additionally, the Board noted although your commanding officer recommended an OTH characterization of service, the final decision in your case was made by the separation authority. 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, 
5/13/2021 

2