DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

Docket No: 2797-18                
Ref: Signature date 

This letter 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 the entire record, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found the evidence submitted was 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 15 May 2019.  The names and votes of the members of the panel 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 this Board.  Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, relevant portions of your naval record, as well as applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 

You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 30 November 1961.  You served for nearly seven months without disciplinary incident, but on 9 July 1962, you were convicted in civil court in        of theft of a vehicle, the sentence imposed was probation with conditions that you be of good conduct and obey all laws and comply with the orders of the Navy.  Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative discharge processing with an other than honorable (OTH) discharge by reason of misconduct due to civil conviction.  After consulting with legal counsel, you elected to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB).  On 9 August 1962, the ADB recommended retention.  On 21 August 1962, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failure to obey a lawful order and unauthorized absence (UA) from your unit for over two days, which was due to your civilian conviction.  Your commanding officer did not concur with the ADB but instead recommended discharge with a general characterization.  The enlisted performance evaluation board recommended discharge with an OTH discharge with a one year suspension, which the separation authority approved and directed your commanding officer hold your discharge in abeyance to observe your conduct and fitness for retention in the Navy.  On 28 September 1962, you signed a counseling statement acknowledging the receipt of the separation authority’s letter which advised you that you were being put on probation until 1 September 1963.  Further, you were advised that you were required to maintain a conduct record clear of any disciplinary action as well as civil offenses.  If at any time during the probationary period you violate any of the terms, your commanding officer is authorized to execute the OTH discharge.  On 6 August 1963, you received NJP for UA from your unit for periods totaling 27 days.  On 22 August 1963, you were discharged with an OTH discharge. 

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your post service conduct and your contention that if you went to captain’s mast (NJP) you would be given a general discharge.  The Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case due to the seriousness of your repeated misconduct that violated your probation, resulted in two NJPs, and a civil conviction.  The Board relies on a presumption of regularity to support the official actions of public officers and, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, will presume that they have properly discharged their official duties.  In regard to your contention, the Board noted your OTH discharge was suspended for a year, but the discharge was executed due to your continued misconduct, which was evidenced by an NJP for periods of UA.  Further, the Board considered your youth and immaturity as factors in your behavior, but concluded that the severity of your misconduct outweighed your mitigating factors.  The Board, in its review, discerned no material error or injustice in the discharge or the characterization of your service. 

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken.  You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new matters.  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,