Docket No: 7097-20 
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 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 27 August 1980.  According to the information in the record.  On 8 June 1981, a summary court-martial (SCM) convicted you of unauthorized absence (UA) totaling 33 days.  On 20 August 1981, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for UA totaling 14 days.  At an unidentified time, you submitted a written request for discharge for the good of the service (GOS) discharge due to being in a UA status for 214 days.  Although the Board lacked your entire service record, the Board relied on a presumption of regularity that prior to submitting this request, you conferred with a qualified military lawyer, at which time you were advised of your rights and warned of the probable adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge.  Thereafter, your request for discharge was granted, and your commanding officer (CO) was directed to issue an other than honorable (OTH) discharge for the good of the service.  As a result of this action, you were spared the stigma of a court-martial conviction, as well as the potential penalties of such a punitive discharge.  On 4 June 1982, 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 contentions that you would like the opportunity to legally own a weapon and have your discharge changed from a dishonorable discharge to an OTH discharge.  Regarding your contention that you would like the opportunity to legally own a weapon.  The Board noted whether or not you are eligible to legally own a weapon is a matter under the cognizance of the state agency responsible for making that determination, and you should contact the nearest office of that agency concerning your right to own a weapon.  If you have been denied the right to own a weapon, you may appeal that denial under procedures established by the agency.  Regarding your contention that you would like your discharge changed from a dishonorable discharge to an OTH discharge.  A review of your record verified that your discharge is an OTH discharge, not a dishonorable discharge.  Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief.  Specifically, the Board determined that your misconduct and request for a GOS discharge 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,