Docket No: 3227-21
Ref: Signature Date 

Dear Petitioner: 
 
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 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 2 August 2021.  The names and votes of the panel members will be furnished upon request.  Your request for clemency was 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 initially enlisted in the U.S. Navy and began a period of active duty on 29 September 1962.  Your last reenlistment was on 5 April 1967.  On 21 July 1967, you received your first non-judicial punishment (NJP) for failure to obey a lawful order.  On 24 August 1967, you received another NJP for disrespect towards a superior officer, two specifications of disrespect to superior petty officers, an unclean uniform, and for using someone else’s meal pass.  On 26 February 1968, you received a third NJP for failure to go to your appointed place of duty and two specifications of failure to obey a lawful order.  On 16 March 1968, you were issued a counseling entry which provided an excerpt from your evaluation documenting your performance as adequate in work assignments.  It stated you required more supervision, and that you conformed to most Navy regulations but you were lax on obeying them occasionally.  It further stated that you conformed to standards of appearance and that you were a fairly good shipmate.  Not long after receiving this counseling, your continued misconduct resulted in a Summary Court-Martial held on 25 March 1968, for two specifications of unauthorized absence (UA).  You were sentenced to confinement with hard labor for 16 days and to forfeiture of $300.00 pay per month for one (1) month.  On 5 April 1968, you were issued a counseling warning which stated that further misconduct may lead to you being processed for an undesirable discharge.  On 29 May 1968, you were found guilty at a Special Court-Martial (SPCM) of two specification of missing ship’s movement, resisting apprehension, breaking restriction, possessing another’s pass, having a false military pass, two specifications of communicating a threat, two specifications of insubordination, assault, and damage to military property.  You were sentenced to a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD), forfeiture of $64.00 pay per month for six months, confinement with hard labor for six months, and reduction in rate (RIR) to E-1.  The Convening Authority approved the BCD, the forfeiture, the RIR, and confinement with hard labor for four months (vice the six you were sentenced).  At the time of that court-martial, you were pending disciplinary action for offenses you committed while at the brig.  On 11 July 1968, you received a second SPCM for attempting to escape confinement, damage to government property, four specifications of disrespect, assault, and two specifications of using threatening language.  You were sentenced to confinement with hard labor for six months, forfeiture of $72.00 per month for six months, RIR to E-1, and a BCD.  On 15 November 1968, a supplemental court martial order remitted your confinement with hard labor and forfeitures.  You were discharged on 15 November 1968 as a result of your SPCM.   
 
On 24 July 1970, your case was heard at the Naval Discharge Review Board.  Although you failed to appear at this hearing, it was held in your absence.  The Board found no change required to your original discharge.  
 
You contend that around September 1964 you were assaulted and injured for being a witness at a court-martial.  The Board viewed your allegations with serious concern.  However, this Board is not an investigating agency nor does it have the resources to investigate unsubstantiated allegations. 
 
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 fell in love and impregnated a woman.  You assert that in your attempt to marry her, you went into a UA status for a period of two days.  The Board further noted that you had other misconduct outside of being UA.  You contend that you should not have enlisted in the Navy after the expiration of your active service, yet you were afforded the opportunity to serve in an active duty capacity, and unfortunately continued your misconduct.  The Board noted your remorse for your actions, your post-service accomplishments, and your advocacy letters submitted for consideration for clemency purposes.  However, based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief.  Specifically, the Board determined that your misconduct, as evidenced by your NJPs and courts-martial 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, 


8/16/2021


Executive Director