DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 

Docket No: 1311-16 
FEB O1 2017 

Dear 

This is in reference to your application for corr tion ofyour naval record pursuant to the 
provisions oftitle 10 ofthe United States Code, section 1552. 

Although your application was not filed in a timely manner, the Board found it in the interest of 
justice to waive the statute oflimitations and consider your application on its merits. A threemember 
panel ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 8 November 2016. The names and votes ofthe members ofthe 
panel will be furnished upon request. Your allegations oferror and injustice were reviewed in 
accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings ofthis 
Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted ofyour application, together 
with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, 
regulations, and policies. 

After careful and conscientious consider(ltion ofthe entire record, the Board found the evidence 
submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. 

You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 17 May 1965. During the period 
from 4 February 1966 to 17 March 1967, you received four nonjudicial punishments (NJP) for 
the following offenses: using disrespectful language toward a Petty Officer, sleeping on watch, 
assault, willfully disobeying a lawful order, and disrespect towards a Senior Petty Officer. 
Additionally, on 3 September 1966, you were convicted by summary court martial (SCM) of 
sleeping on watch. Subsequently, on I 0 April 1967, you were notified ofpending administrative 
separation action by reason ofmisconduct due to convenience ofthe government as evidenced 
by your failure to adapt to military life, having low marks, and not having the potential to 
become a Petty Officer (PO). As a result ofthe forgoing, you were not recommended for 
reenlistment and on 25 April 1967, you were so discharged. 

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially 
mitigating factors, such as your post service conduct, character letters, and your desire to 
upgrade your discharge. The board also considered your contentions that your discharge was due 
to racist manipulation in the military system and the accusation that you lacked the intelligence 
to succeed in your job. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to 
warrant relief given your misconduct. In this regard, the Board concluded that the seriousness of 
your misconduct, which resulted in four NJPs and a SCM, outweighed your desire to upgrade 
your discharge. The Board noted that Character ofservice is based, in part, on conduct and 
overall trait averages which are computed from marks assigned during periodic evaluations. 
Your conduct average was 2.4. An average of3.0 in conduct was required at the time ofyour 
separation for a fully honorable characterization of service. Moreover, there is no evidence in 
your record, and you submitted none, to support your contention that your discharge was due to 
racist manipulation in the military system. Finally, the Board believed that you were fortunate to 
receive a general discharge, since a discharge under other than honorable conditions is often 
directed when a Sailor is separated with misconduct in their record. Accordingly, your 
application has been denied. 

It is regretted that the circumstances 9f your case are such that favorable action cannot be tak~n. 
You are entitled to have the Board reponsider its decision upon submission ofnew and mateqal 
evidence within one year from the date ofthe Board's decision. New evidence is evidence not 
previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in your case. In this regard, it is 
important to keep in mind that a presumption ofregularity attaches to all official records. 
Consequently, when applying for a correction ofan official naval record, the burden is on.the 
applicant to demonstrate the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 

Executive Director