DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 8403-17 APR O1 2019 Dear : This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Title I0, 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 19 December 2018. The names and votes of tbe 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. 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 of the issues involved. Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 31 August 1976. During the period from 3 March 1977 to 4 April 1979, you received six non-judicial punishments (NJP) for five periods of unauthorized absence, absent from your appointed place of duty on three occasions, disrespect in language, disobeying a lawful order, and wrongful possession of a controlled substance. On 7 October 1977, you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of an unauthorized absence totaling threee days and disrespect in language. On 2 March 1979 you again were convicted by SCM of three periods of unauthorized absence totaling 47 days, absent from your appointed place of duty and missing ship's movement. Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement, at which time you elected your procedural right to consult with legal counsel and waived your right to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB). Your conunanding officer recommended that you be discharged with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service due to frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities. The discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed that you be discharged with an OTH characterization of service. The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade your discharge. The Board considered your contention that you believe if there had been treatment such as alcohol and drug therapy applied your service behavior would have been more than adequate during your service career. The Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief given the seriousness of your repeated misconduct that resulted in six NJPs and two SCMs. The Board noted the record shows you were notified of and elected your right to consult with legal counsel but waived your right to present your case to an ADB. Accordingly, the Board discerned no impropriety or inequity in the discharge action that would warrant a change in your characterization of service. 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 of probable material error or injustice. Sincerely, Executive Director