Docket No: 5588-19 
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 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 for Correction of Naval Records (Board), sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 October 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, together with all material submitted in support thereof, 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 25 June 1975.  In January 1977, you acknowledged receipt of a mark of 2.8 in Military Appearance.  On 8 August 1977, you began a period of unauthorized absence (UA), which terminated on 3 September 1977.  On 6 October 1977, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for violating Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 86 (period of UA).  On 28 November 1977, you received a second NJP for violating Article 92 (failure to obey a Departmental Regulation to observe reveille).  On 31 January 1978, you were found guilty at summary court martial proceedings for two specifications of UA and for disrespectful language and deportment towards a superior petty officer.  You began another period of UA on 27 April 1978, and missed ship’s movement on 1 May 1978.  On 6 June 1978, you were found guilty at NJP of two specifications of UA.  You were notified of administrative separation proceedings against you on 14 June 1978; your Commanding Officer recommended you receive an other than honorable characterization of service. You waived your right to appear before an administrative separation board.  On 26 June 1978, the Chief of Naval Personnel directed that you receive a general characterization of service.  You were discharged from the Navy on 3 August 1978, on the basis of Misconduct (Frequent Involvement), and received a general characterization of service.  You sought an upgrade from the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB), and were informed in NDRB’s letter of 14 November 1990, that NDRB denied your request for an honorable characterization of service. 
 
In your petition to the Board, you ask that your administrative discharge be changed to a medical discharge.  You contend that you suffered a head injury while you were in the Navy, and that your discharge was the result of symptoms of your head injury. 
 
The Board carefully reviewed your application, and took into consideration your contention that you suffered symptoms from a head injury that resulted in a discharge from the Navy.  The Board noted that you did not provide supporting information establishing a service-connected head injury that caused a medical condition which impacted your performance of duty.  Furthermore, your service record indicates that you committed numerous infractions as documented by your NJPs and summary court martial conviction.  Pursuant to SECNAVINST 1850.4 series, in a case where a service member is undergoing disciplinary or administrative discharge proceedings which result in an administrative discharge for misconduct, disability separation is superseded.  Although your record and the information you provide do not establish that you met the criteria for a disability separation or referral to a Medical Board or Physical Evaluation Board due to a head injury, your documented misconduct would override a disability separation.  The Board found that you were properly separated with a general characterization of service on the basis of misconduct, and that there is insufficient evidence to establish that you are entitled to corrective action with either an upgrade or a medical discharge.   
 
Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to its 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. 
 
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, 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,