DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

Docket No: 7035-20              
Ref: Signature Date 


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 13 January 2021.  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). 
You enlisted in the Navy on 29 October 1963.  On 31 January 1964, a summary court-martial (SCM) convicted you of two specifications of unauthorized absence (UA) totaling 20 days.  On 14 March 1964, an additional SCM convicted you of UA totaling five days.  On 20 April 1964, you admitted to the command’s investigator that you did not inform your recruiter of your prior civil convictions of armed robbery and reckless driving.  On 22 June 1964, you made a written statement admitting to your involvement with civil authorities, marijuana use, smoking aspirin, taking morphine tablets, and attempting to use iodine while in the brig in an attempt to be discharged from the Navy.  On 27 August 1964, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for UA totaling 10 days.  Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to fraudulent entry.  After you waived your rights, your commanding officer (CO) recommended an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service by reason of misconduct due to fraudulent entry.  

The discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed an OTH discharge due to misconduct.  On 29 October 1964, you were discharged.  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 your contentions that you were told you could request a discharge upgrade after six months and you were young and went UA in order to see your girlfriend.  In regard to your contention that you were told you could request a discharge upgrade after six months, the Board noted that there is no provision in law or regulations that allows for re-characterization of a discharge automatically after six months, due solely to the passage of time.  Regarding your contention that you were young and went UA in order to see your girlfriend, the Board noted that your record clearly reflected your misconduct and the evidence of record did not show that you were not responsible for your conduct or that you should not be held accountable for your actions.  Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief. Specifically, the Board determined that your misconduct and admitting to fraudulent enlistment 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, 

Executive Director