DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 4521-21 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 20 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 on 19 February 1997. You began a period of unauthorized absence (UA) on 29 September 1998. While in an UA status, the Police Department charged you with manufacturing bombs, possession of explosives, and first degree reckless endangerment. On 25 November 1998, you received a civilian conviction after pleading guilty to one count of illegal possession of explosives. On 9 December 1998, the Family Advocacy Program Case Review Committee substantiated allegations by your spouse of physical and emotional abuse and recommended administrative separation due to domestic violence. Subsequently, on 15 December 1998, you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and civilian conviction. After you waived your procedural rights, and your Commanding Officer (CO) recommended discharge by reason of misconduct with an other than honorable (OTH) character of service. The discharge authority concurred with the CO’s recommendation and your directed discharge with an OTH characterization of service by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. On 24 December 1998, you were discharged with an OTH characterization of service. The Board carefully reviewed your application, weighed all potentially mitigating factors, and considered your contention the police report and reason for separation “sound much more sinister” than what actually occurred. Specifically, the Board considered your contention that you and your spouse were going through a difficult time, and she called the police “out of spite.” You further contend she intentionally moved the pipe bombs, which you constructed prior to enlistment and had been unintentionally mailed to your home by your family with other personal belongings, so the police could easily locate them when they searched your home. The Board also considered your contention you thought you had permission from your chain of command to attend the Chaplain Religious Enrichment Development Operation program and did not intentionally absent yourself from the service. Further, the Board considered your contention that while in an UA status, you spent time in a psychiatric hospital seeking treatment at the behest of your spouse but it was not until you returned home that you discovered her request was an attempt to manipulate your and damage your naval service. The Board however noted you did not provide supporting documentation of your hospitalization. Additionally, the Board considered the Absolute Pardon you received from the State of which allows you to truthfully state you have never been arrested or convicted of a crime in the state of . Unfortunately, the Board determined there was insufficient evidence of an error or injustice that warrants upgrading your characterization of service. The Board also considered your post-service contributions, your spouse’s advocacy letter describing you as a husband and father, and the mitigating factors you contend warrant clemency. Specifically, the Board considered your remorse and repentant posture with regard to your misconduct. The Board further considered your contention the OTH discharge has unjustly stigmatized you, harmed you, haunted you, robbed you of your good name, injured you economically, and continues to burden your family after decades. Unfortunately, the Board, applying liberal consideration, concluded there was insufficient evidence of an error or injustice that warrants granting clemency in the form of an upgraded characterization of service. 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 and your contentions discussed above. Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief. Specifically, the Board determined 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 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, 9/1/2021 Executive Director