Docket No: 3417-19 
Ref: Signature Date 



This is in reference to your application of 18 March 2019 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 21 April 2020.  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, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 

You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 26 September 1975. On 26 November 1976 and 18 February 1977, you received two non-judicial punishment (NJP) for dereliction of duty and unauthorized absence (UA) totaling nine days.  On 12 May 1977, you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of UA totaling 22 days.  Subsequently, you were notified of an administrative action to separate you from the naval service for misconduct due to frequent involvement with military authorities.  After you waived your rights, your commanding officer (CO) recommended a general under honorable conditions characterization of service for misconduct due to frequent involvement.  On 31 May 1977, you received NJP for violation of a lawful general regulation.  On 10 June 1977, the separation authority approved your CO’s recommendation and directed ageneral discharge for misconduct.  On 16 June 1977, you were discharged after receiving NJP for a one day UA and being absence from your appointed place of duty. 

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors in your case, including your desire to upgrade your discharge and contention that you were treated unfairly by your CO which led to harassment and trumped up charges.  The Board also noted your contentions that 30 Sailors who jumped ship were given an opportunity to return due to the CO being at fault and you took your CO to court and won.  However, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case given your misconduct and final marks received at discharge. 

The Board noted that character of service is based, in part, on conduct and overall trait averages which are computed from marks assigned during periodic evaluations.  Your conduct average was 2.0. An average of 3.0 in conduct was required at the time of your separation for an honorable characterization of service. 

Regarding the contention that you were treated unfairly by your CO which led to harassment and trumped up charges, the Board noted that there is no evidence in your record, and you submitted none, to support your contention.  The Board also noted that the record contains documented evidence, which is contrary to your contention.  The record shows that you were discharged with a general discharge due to frequent involvement as a result of receiving four NJP’s and a SCM conviction.  The Board concluded that your current characterization does not reflect an error or injustice that merits corrective action. 

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 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.