DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

Docket No: 8553-16 

NOV 29 2017 

Dear : 

This is in reference to your application for correction 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 7 November 2017. 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 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, relevant portions of your naval record and 
applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 

Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal 
appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to their understanding ofthe issues 
involved. Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and 
considered your case based on the evidence ofrecord. 

You enlisted in the Navy on 15 September 1978. According to the information in your record. 
During the period from 5 November 1980 to 4 September 1981, you received three non-judicial 
punishments (NJP) for the following offenses: unauthorized absence (UA), absence from 
appointed place ofduty, failure to go to appointed place of duty, and incapacitated for 
performance of duty. On 11 July 1983, you submitted a written request for discharge for the 
good ofthe service to avoid trial by court-martial for being UA on three separate occasions 
totaling 153 days. Prior to submitting this request, you conferred with a qualified military 
lawyer, at which time you were advised ofyour rights and warned ofthe probable adverse 
consequences of accepting such a discharge. Your request was granted and your Commanding 
Officer was directed to issue an other than honorable (OTH) discharge for the good ofthe 
service. As a result ofthis action, you were spared the stigma ofa court-martial conviction, as 
well as the potential penalties of such a punitive discharge. On 18 July 1983, you were 
discharged. 

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. The 
Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as letters from the Red Cross, 
letter from Commander ofthe dated 3February1983, your desire to upgrade your 
discharge and contention that you received a letter from your congressman stating the Red Cross 
never interceded on your behalf after you requested an extension ofyour leave. However, the 
Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case given your 
misconduct. In this regard, the Board concluded that your lengthy period ofUA, outweighed 
your desire to upgrade your discharge. The Board noted that the record contains documented 
evidence which is contrary to your contention. The record clearly shows that your Commanding 
Officer responded to the Red Cross denying your request for extension. The Board also noted 
that after your request for extension was disapproved, you were in a UA status on three separate 
occasions totaling 153 days. The Board believed that considerable clemency was extended to 
you when your request for discharge to avoid trial by court-martial was approved. Accordingly, 
your application has been denied. 

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action canriot be taken 
at this time. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the submission of 
new and material evidence. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board. 
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