DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

Docket No: 2256-17 

JUL 1 6 2018 


This is in reference to your application for correction ofyour naval record pursuant to the 
provisions oftitle 10, United States Code, section 1552. Aftercareful and conscientious 
consideration ofthe entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to 
establish the existence ofprobable 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 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 30 May 2018. The names and votes of the 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, relevant portions ofyour naval record, and 
applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 

You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 6 June 1969. You served for a 
year and seven months without disciplinary incident, but on 1 February 1971, you received 
nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for unauthorized absence (UA) from your unit for four days. On 
I December 1971, you were in a UA status from your unit until 13 March 1972, a period of 102 
days. On 10 April 1972, you made a written request to be discharged for the good ofthe service 
to avoid trial by court-martial. On 12 May 1972, the separation authority denied your request. 
On 18 May 1972, you were once again UA from your unit until 7 June 1972, a period of20 days. 
You made another written request for discharge for the good ofthe service to avoid trial by 
court-martial for the foregoing periods of UA. Prior to submitting this request, you conferred 
with a qualified military lawyer at which time you were advised of your rights and warned of the 
probable adverse consequences ofaccepting such a discharge. Your request was granted and the 
commanding officer directed your undesirable discharge. As a result of this action, you were 
spared the stigma of a court-martial conviction and the potential penalties ofa punitive discharge 
and confinement at hard labor. On 19 July 1972, you were discharged under OTH conditions. 

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, including your desire to upgrade 
your discharge and contentions that you were not there for your special court-martial (SPCM) or 
informed.ofthe date and you believe that people in prison have done far worse and have got less 
sentence than you. The Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in 
your case because ofthe seriousness ofyour misconduct that resulted in an NJP, periods ofUA 
totaling over four months 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. In regard to your contention, the Board noted you were not convicted by a 
SPCM, but that you requested an other than honorable discharge in place ofthe court-martial. 
The Board relies on a presumption ofregularity to support the official actions ofpublic officers 
and, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, will presume that they have properly 
discharged their official duties. The Board in its review discerned no impropriety or inequity in 
the discharge. 

It is regretted that the circumstances ofyour case are such that favorable action cannot 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