Docket No: 6964-20
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 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 16 December 2020.  The names and votes of the panel members 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 the 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, 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 and began a period of active duty on 11 March 1977.  During the period from 6 July 1977 to 22 June 1979, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) four times.  Your offenses included, 4 periods of unauthorized absence (UA) totaling 19 days, disrespect toward a commissioned officer and 4 specifications of failure to obey a lawful order.  According to the record, you were in a UA status from 29 October 1979 to 27 February 1980, totaling 118 days. 
 
Unfortunately, your administrative separation documents are not in your service record.  Absent such evidence, the Board relied on a presumption of regularity to support the official actions of public officers, and in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary (as is the case at present), the Board presumed that they have properly discharged their official duties.  The Board noted that on your Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214), the narrative reason for separation is “Good of the Service,” and your separation code is “KFS,” which corresponds an administrative discharge for the Good of the Service.  As such, it appears that you submitted a voluntary written request for an other than honorable (OTH) discharge for the Good of the Service to avoid trial by court-martial.  Presumably, prior to submitting this voluntary discharge request, you conferred with a qualified military lawyer, you were advised of your rights, and warned of the probable adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge.  As part of this discharge request, you would have acknowledged that your characterization of service upon discharge would be other than honorable (OTH).  On 26 March 1980, you were discharged from the naval service with an OTH characterization of service.   
 
The Board considered your contention that your discharge was wrong, as it was based on statements made by your commanding officer to the crew of your ship that you were one of the “bastards” responsible for damage caused to the ship while in the shipyard.  You assert that you never overcame this false accusation, and you were wrongfully accused of damaging the ship. 
The noted that there is no evidence in the record, and you provided none, to support your contention.  The Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief.   
  
The Board also 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 contention as described above.  Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief.  Specifically, the Board determined that your repeated misconduct, as evidenced by your four NJPs and lengthy UA, outweighed these mitigating factors.  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,