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

Docket No: 2278-16 
FEB 22 2017 

Dear

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions ofTitle 10 of the 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 of limitations and consider your application on its merits. A three­member panel ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1February2017. 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, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 

After careful and conscientious consideration of the 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 5 March 1975. During the period from 24 September 1975 to 17 November 1977, you received five nonjudicial punishments (NIP) for two specifications of sleeping on watch, disrespect, offering violence, unauthorized absence, and failure to obey a lawful order. On 24 October 1975, you were convicted by a summary court-martial (SCM) of failure to go to your appointed place ofduty, failure to obey a lawful order, and wrongful use ofreproachful words. On 28 February 1978, you were convicted by a special court-martial (SPCM) ofattempting to commit larceny, larceny, and putting a person in fear. You were adjudged confinement, forfeiture of pay, reduction in rank, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD). The BCD was suspended for the remainder of your enlistment. 

Subsequently, you were notified of administrative separation by reason of misconduct due to 
frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities, at which time you 
elected your right to consult with counsel. The Commanding Officer (CO) recommended 
discharge with type warranted by your service record. On 18 June 1979, the Discharge 
Authority directed a general under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct. Your 
discharge was being held in abeyance for further observation of your conduct. It was stipulated 
that you were being placed in a probationary status subject to maintaining a clear record of an
disciplinary action or civil offense. ffat any time you violated the probation, the CO was authorized to execute the discharge. It was also noted that should you have committed any additional offenses after 1 May 1979, the CO could hold the probationary period in abeyance and execute the discharge. Subsequently, you committed further misconduct which led to your NJP on 15 June 1979. As a result, on 28 June 1979, you were administratively processed and discharged with general under honorable conditions character of service by reason of misconduct. 

The Board, in its review of your record and application, carefully weighed your desire to remove the reason of your discharge and your contention that your command misinterpreted your NJP as a breach of the probationary period. The Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case given your repeated misconduct which resulted in six NJPs, a SCM, 
your discharge by reason of misconduct. In this regard, the Board concluded that your NJP of 15 June 1979 negated your probationary period and your reason for discharge was warranted. Accordingly, your application 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 of new and material evidence within one year from the date of the 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