Docket No: 1936-20 
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, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 November 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, together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 
 
Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to their understanding of the issue(s) 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 on 11 February 1974.  During the period from 6 August 1974 to 22 May 1975, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) seven times for:  three specifications of unauthorized absence (UA) totaling 22 days, violation of a lawful regulation, five specifications of failure to go to appointed place of duty, and absence from your appointed place of duty.  On 16 July 1975, a summary court-martial convicted you of three specifications of UA totaling 42 days and disobedience of a lawful order from a superior commission officer.  Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of unfitness due to frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities.  However, on 15 August 1975, you received an additional NJP for being UA for four days.  After waiving your rights, your commanding officer forwarded your package to the discharge authority recommending discharge under other than honorable (OTH) conditions.  The discharge authority approved this recommendation, and on 6 October 1975, you were discharged.  
 
In reviewing the circumstances of your separation and characterization of service, the Board considered the totality of the circumstances to determine whether relief is appropriate today in the interests of justice in accordance with guidance provided by the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (Wilkie Memo of 25 July 2018).   The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade your discharge; your assertion that your recruiter told you that you would receive your General Education Diploma after you enlisted; your assertion you were charged with possessing marijuana, which was a lie; and your contention that you went into a UA status because your command and shipmates treated you badly because of your past record.  The Board also noted your assertions that you were young and immature, and you now need Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA) benefits.   
 
The Board noted that there is no evidence in your record, and you submitted none, to support your contentions.  The Board also noted that the record shows that you were notified of, and waived your right to present your case to an administrative board.   
 
In this regard, the Board concluded that your repeated misconduct outweighed your desire to upgrade your discharge.  Even considering these potentially mitigating factors in accordance with the above referenced guidance, the Board did not find that relief was in the interest of justice.  The Board concluded that your OTH discharge characterization was issued without error or injustice, and that corrective action is not warranted. 
 
Regarding your contention that you need DVA benefits, whether you are eligible for benefits is a matter under the cognizance of the DVA, and you should contact the nearest office of the DVA concerning your right to apply for benefits.  If you have been denied benefits, you may be able to appeal that denial under procedures established by the DVA. 
 
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,