Docket No: 751-20 Ref: Signature Date Dear : This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552. 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 was 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 for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 October 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 your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to its 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 served an honorable period of active duty from 28 January 1965 to 16 October 1968. You reenlisted and began your second period of enlistment on 17 October 1968. Your record reflects a short period of unauthorized absence (UA) for 10 minutes on 27 December 1968. On 14 March 1969, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for UA from 13-14 February 1969, failure to obey a lawful general regulation, and UA from your appointed place of duty, to wit Signal Tower Watch. On 1 October 1969, a special court martial (SPCM) found you guilty of wrongfully and unlawfully attempting to obtain services of a value of $275 from and submission of a fraudulent claim for dependent travel in the amount of $131. You embarked on a period of UA from 9 to 27 October 1969. You appeared before a second SPCM in August and September of 1970, and were found guilty of knowingly presenting a false claim against the government in the amount of $696, a period of UA from 16 to 29 June 1970, and with the intent to defraud, writing checks without having sufficient funds for the payment of the checks. You were sentenced to a period of correctional custody, forfeiture of pay and a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) as a result of your second SPCM. Following your second special court martial during your second enlistment, you again were UA from 5 October 1970 until 19 November 1970. You again went UA on 20 November 1970. You record indicates that on 24 February 1971, you were apprehended by the FBI and released to military authority on 24 February 1971. On 25 March 1971, you received NJP for the period of UA from 5 October to 19 November 1970, and the Court remitted the unexcuted portion of your sentence and placed on indefinite leave awaiting action on your BCD. On 18 February 1972, you were discharge from the Navy on the basis of the special court martial, and received an other than honorable characterization of service. In your application for correction you request that you be exonerated and indicate that you would like an upgrade to your discharge characterization, removal of the adverse information in your service record, and a return to duty. The Board noted that you state that you earned three Bronze Stars, indicate that you were exposed to Agent Orange, and that you were accused of a crime that you did not commit, sent to the brig and offered a bad conduct discharge to get out. You assert that a few months later, you were informed that a second class yeoman admitted that he signed a loan request that you were charged with forging. You also noted that you are suffering from terminal cancer, and would like your record cleared once and for all. You also provided a personal statement and a DD Form 214, which reflects an honorable discharge for your second enlistment, with an ending date of service of 2 April 1973. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, including your contention that another Sailor forged a loan request for which you were charged with misconduct and found guilty at special court martial. The Board also took into account your first period of honorable active duty service and your positive contributions to the military. Nonetheless, the Board found that the mitigating factors did not overcome the misconduct reflected in your service record for your second period of enlistment. The Board also found that the misconduct documented in your record does not appear to have been entered erroneously or unjustly and that corrective action is not warranted. It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken. 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,