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

 
Docket No: 6545-17 
MAR 08 2019 

Dear 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the 
provisions of Title 10, United States Code, section 1552. 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. 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 of limitations and consider your application on its merits. A three-
member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 1 November 2018. 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, relevant portions of your naval record, and 
applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 

You enlisted in the Navy and began a period ofactive duty on 27 October 1976. You served for 
11 months without disciplinary incident, but, during the period from 29 September 1977 to 
13 July 1978, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on four occasions and were convicted 
by summary court-martial (SCM) on two occasions. Your offenses were several periods of 
unauthorized absence (UA) from your unit, wrongful possession of marijuana, failure to obey a 
lawful regulation, resisting lawful apprehension, attempting to break into a locker, missing 
restricted men's muster, missing extra-duty muster, failure to go to your appointed place of duty, 
failure to obey a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer, selling stolen property, larceny, 
and escape from custody. Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative separation 
by reason of misconduct. After consulting with legal counsel, you elected to present your case to 
an administrative discharge board (ADB). On 18 August 1978 and 12 October 1978, you 
received NJP for failure to obey a lawful order, failure to obey a written regulation, and 
wrongfully disposing of tax-free merchandise. You signed a memorandum ofagreement (MOA) 
to waive your ADB and to accept an administrative discharge under honorable conditions. On 
13 May 1980, your commanding officer forwarded his recommendation that you be discharged 
under honorable conditions. The separation authority approved and directed that you be 
separated by reason of misconduct with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization 
of service. You were discharged on 26 October 1978. 

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, including your contention that 
you were not given proper supervision and help with your career in the Navy. The Board, 
however, concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case because 
of your repeated misconduct, which resulted in six NJPs and two SCM convictions. The Board 
relies on a presumption of regularity to support the official actions of public officers and, in the 
absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, will presume that they have properly discharged 
their official duties. Your allegations are unsupported in the record, and you submitted no 
evidence to support your contentions. Further, the Board considered your youth and immaturity 
as factors in your behavior, but concluded that the severity of your misconduct outweighed your 
current desire to upgrade your discharge. The Board, in its review, discerned no impropriety or 
inequity in the discharge. 

It is regretted that the circumstances of your 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 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