Docket No: 2804-21 
Ref: Signature Date 

 
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 14 May 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). 
 
You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 1 April 1985.  On 8 July 1985, you began a period of unauthorized absence (UA) which lasted one day.  On 10 July 1985, you were counseled for unsatisfactory performance and conduct, due to commission of minor disciplinary infractions including disrespect towards a senior petty officer, UA, and uniform deficiencies.  You were advised that failure to take corrective action may result in administrative separation.  On 17 July 1985, you began a second period of UA which lasted one day and four hours.  On 29 July 1985, you began a third period of UA which lasted one day and three hours.  On 16 August 1985, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for the two aforementioned periods of UA.  On 31 October 1985, you began a fourth period of UA which lasted two-days.  On 26 November 1985, you received a second NJP for the period of UA.  On 5 December 1985, you began a fifth period of UA which lasted eight-days.  On 12 September 1986, you were counseled for disrespect towards petty officers.  Subsequently, you were advised that failure to take corrective action may result in administrative separation.  On 1 April 1987, you received a third NJP for wrongful use of a controlled substance. On 17 June 1987, you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) for disobeying a lawful order, destruction of government property, assault, and communicating a threat.  You were subsequently notified of administrative discharge processing as a result of your court-martial conviction.  You waived your right to an administrative separation hearing, and on 13 August 1987, the discharge authority ordered an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.  On 28 August 1987, you were 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 you characterization of service.  Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief.  Specifically, the Board determined that your repeated misconduct, as evidenced by your NJPs and SPCM, 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, 

5/30/2021

Executive Director