Docket No: 7267-20
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 29 March 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, 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 and began a period of active duty on 23 November 1962.  From 17 May 1963 to 15 April 1964, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) on seven separate occasions.  The offenses included, unauthorized absence (UA), sleeping on watch, and dereliction of duty.  On 25 January 1965, you were convicted at a Summary Court-Martial for leaving your post.  You were sentenced to restriction for 20 days and forfeitures of $50.00 pay per month for one month.  On 19 February1965, you were notified of pending administrative separation by reason of unfitness due to frequent involvement of discreditable nature with military authorities, at which point, you exercised your right to an administrative discharge board (ADB).  At the conclusion of the ADB proceedings, the board members recommended your retention in the Naval Service.  Your commanding officer concurred with the recommendation of the ADB.   
 
On 4 May 1965, you received an eighth NJP for being absent from your appointed place of duty.   
On 31 July 1965, you were in a UA status from your unit until you surrendered to your command on 5 August 1965.  On 3 August 1965, while in a UA status, you missed ship’s movement.  On 6 August 1965, you were in a UA status from your unit until you surrendered to your command on 18 August 1965, which caused you to miss another ship’s movement.  Subsequently, on 4 October 1965, you were convicted at a Special Court-Martial (SPCM) for two specifications of UA and two specifications of missing movement of the .  You were sentenced to confinement with hard labor for three months, forfeitures of $78.00 pay per month for three months, reduction to E-1, and discharged from the Naval Service with a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD); however, the BCD was suspended for six months.  On 31 December 1965, you were in a UA status from your unit until you surrendered to your command on 5 January 1966.  Subsequently, on 14 January 1966, you received your ninth NJP for being UA.  On 3 and 4 February 1966, you received your tenth and eleventh NJP for sleeping on post and reading on post, respectively.  On 24 February 1966, the General Court-Martial Convening Authority vacated your suspended BCD.  On 14 March 1966, you were discharged.    
 
The Board carefully reviewed your application and 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 your punishments were severe compared to your actions, youthful mistakes led to the misconduct, you were “labeled unfairly,” and you were not provided appropriate representation prior to being unjustly released from the U.S. Navy.  However, the Board noted you did not did not submit advocacy letters or post-service documents to be considered for clemency purposes.  Even applying liberal consideration, the Board determined there was insufficient evidence of an error or injustice that warrants an upgrade to your characterization of service.  Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief.  Specifically, the Board determined that your misconduct 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 the 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,