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

Docket No: 1651-16 

Dear 

This is in reference to your applJcation for correction of your naval record pursuant to thi 
provisions oftitle 10, 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 2 November 2016. The names and votes ofthe members ofthe 
panel will be furnished upon request. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in 
accordance with administrative regU!ations and procedures applicable to the proceedings ofthis 
Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together 
with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, 
regulations, and policies. 

After careful and conscientious consideration ofthe entire record, the Board found the evidence 
submitted was insufficient to establish the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. 

You enlisted in the Navy and began a period ofactive duty on 14 February 1975. You served for 
two years and two months without disciplinary incident, but on 13 April 1977, you received 
nonjudicial punishment (NJP), for smoking in an unauthorized area. On 17 August 1977, you 
were reported to be in an unauthorized absence (UA) status from your unit until you were 
apprehended and returned to your unit on21August1978 a period of370 days. 

You made a written request for discharge for the good ofthe service to avoid trial by court
martial for the foregoing period ofUA. Prior to submitting this request you conferred with a 
qualified military lawyer at which time you were advised of your rights and warned ofthe 
probable adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge. Your request was granted and the 
commanding officer directed your other than honorable (OTH) discharge. As a result ohhis 
action, you were spared the stigma ofa court-martial conviction and the potential penalties ofa 
punitive discharge and confinement at hard labor. On 1 I October 1978, you were discharged 
under OTH conditions. 

The Board, in its review ofyour entire record and application carefully weighed all potentially 
mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade your discharge without benefits. Nevertheless, 
the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case because of 
the seriousness of your misconduct that resulted in a period ofUA totaling over a year and 
request for discharge. The Board believed that considerable clemency was extended to you 
when your request for discharge to avoid trial by court-martial was approved. The Board 
concluded that you received the benefit ofyour bargain with the Navy when your request for 
discharge was granted and should not be permitted to change it now. Further, the Board 
concluded that lost time ofa year or more does not constitute service under honorable conditions. 
Accordingly, your aptlication has been denied. 

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 ofnew and material 
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 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 ofprobable.material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 


Executive Director