Docket No: 6406-20
Ref: Signature date              
              
Dear : 
 
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 you did not file the application in a timely manner, the Board found it in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations and consider the application on its merits.  A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered the application on 21 September 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 the application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of your naval record, as well as 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 on 12 March 1980.  Between 29 November 1980 and 13 January 1981, you embarked on three periods of unauthorized absence.  On 19 January 1981, you received nonjudicial punishment for these periods of unauthorized absence.  You then commenced a period of unauthorized absence from 16 February 1981 until 30 June 1981.  You were convicted by a special court-martial on 6 August 1981 for these periods of unauthorized absence.  Finally, you commenced another period of unauthorized absence on 24 May 1982 until you were apprehended by the Chicago police, on 31 August 1982.  You were convicted by another special court-martial on 18 October 1982, and you were sentenced to, among other things, a bad conduct discharge.  On 30 August 1983, your bad conduct discharge was executed.  On 13 April 1985, the Navy Discharge Review Board denied the petition that you filed there. 
 
The Board carefully reviewed the materials that you provided and considered your contentions.  You contend that you received your bad conduct discharge because you went AWOL to take care of your son.  According to your petition, the Navy would not recognize your son and therefore you could not receive much-needed benefits.  You further contend that you were offered a hardship discharge and turned it down.  Upon review of your naval service record, Page 2 (“Record of Emergency Data”), you registered a son as a dependent on file while you were in the service.  The son that you had registered with the Navy as a dependent was born in October 1980.  Thus, the Board found that the Navy recognized your son as a dependent.  You did not provide any evidence, nor is there any in your record, that you sought, or were denied, a hardship discharge.   
 
You stated further that you raised your son and now you assist with raising your grandson.  You are a homeowner and a productive member of society with no criminal convictions.  You also have thirty years with your present job and would like a FOID card.   
 
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 and all of the assertions and contentions in your petition.  Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief.  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,