DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 4750-21 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 25 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). 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 24 April 1981. On 18 May 1982, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for failure to obey a lawful order, being absent from your appointed place of duty, and four specifications of unauthorized absence totaling five days. On 17 March 1983, you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of an unauthorized absence from 31 September 1982 to 24 January 1983. As punishment you were awarded confinement, forfeiture of pay and reduction in rank. On 31 March 1983, you were issued an administrative remarks (Page 13) counseling concerning deficiencies in your performance and conduct; you were provided recommendations for corrective action, and informed that any further deficiencies in your performance and/or conduct may result in disciplinary action and/or processing for administrative separation. On 31 August 1983, you received your second NJP for three specifications of absent from your appointed place of duty. On 15 September 1983, you were notified that you were being recommended for administrative discharge from the Navy. You were advised of, and waived, your procedural rights, to include, your right to consult with and be represented by military counsel, and your right to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB). Your commanding officer (CO) then forwarded your administrative separation package to the separation authority (SA) recommending administrative discharge from the Navy with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service. The SA approved the CO’s recommendation and directed your OTH discharge from the Navy by reason of misconduct due to pattern of misconduct. Prior to your administrative discharge you received your third NJP for an unauthorized absence. On 3 October 1983, 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 discharge character of service, change your narrative reason for separation, separation program designator and reenlistment code. The Board considered your contention that your misconduct was due to drinking; the Navy never offered you any assistance or counseling to address this problem. You further state that you never were a drinker before you joined the Navy and that alcohol was too available for servicemen. You also noted that you wanted to have a career in the Navy, but the Navy just discharged you instead. The Board noted that you did not submit any documentation or advocacy letters in support of your application to be considered for clemency consideration. 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 three NJPs and SPCM conviction, outweighed these mitigating factors. Regarding your contentions, regulatory guidelines state a command is under no obligation to send a servicemember to alcohol rehabilitation treatment unless it was determined, by competent medical authority, that the servicemember is alcohol dependent; there is no documentation in the record and you presented none that shows you were alcohol dependent. 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, 9/13/2021 Executive Director