Docket No: 8095-20
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  27 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). 
 
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 30 November 1964.  On 26 May 1966 and 20 February 1967, you were convicted by two separate summary courts-martial (SCM).  Your offenses were two periods of unauthorized absence (UA) totaling 43 days and failure to obey a lawful order.  On 25 April 1967 and 5 May 1967, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP).  Your offenses were two periods of UA totally six days.    
 
Subsequently, on 9 May 1967, you were notified that you were being recommended for administrative discharge from the naval service because of unfitness due to frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities.  You were advised of, and waived your procedural rights, including your right to consult with and be represented by military counsel, and your right to present your case to an administrative discharge board.  Prior to your commanding officer’s (CO) recommendation, on 4 August 1967, you received your third NJP for an UA totaling nine days.  On 30 August 1967, you were evaluated and diagnosed with an emotionally unstable personality and recommended for administrative discharge.  Your CO recommended your administrative discharge from the naval service with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service.  The Chief of Naval Personnel (CNP) approved the CO’s recommendation; however, CNP desired that the execution of your OTH be held in abeyance by your CO pending further observation of your conduct and fitness for retention in the naval service.  CNP further stated that if at any time during your probationary period of 12 months, or the expiration of your active obligation service, whichever was sooner, you were to violate any of the terms presented to you, the CO was authorized to execute the OTH discharge.   
 
On 16 October 1967, you commenced a period of UA that subsequently concluded on 31 January 1968 totaling 107 days.  On 26 February 1968, you were medically reevaluated and your diagnosis was unchanged from the previous diagnosis.  On 15 May 1968, you received your fourth NJP for two specifications of UA totaling 107 days.  As a result of your misconduct, you were in violation of the provisions of your probationary period and processed for administrative discharge.  On 13 June 1968, you were discharged with an OTH character of service by reason of unfitness. 
    
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 contention that your reason for separation is “horribly incorrect.”  You further state that before and after your time in service, you had a spotless life; you were involved in the community, civic activities and were respected by friends and associates.  You have lived with the stigma of the circumstances of your discharge.  The Board noted you did not submit any documentation or advocacy letters to be considered in support of your petition.  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 two SCMs convictions, 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,