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

Docket No: 8851-17

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 18 January 2019. 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, applicable 
statutes, regulations, and policies.

You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 22 August 1963.  On 9 April 
1966, you were convicted at summary court-martial (SCM) of unauthorized absence (UA) 
totaling 25 days and missing ship's movement. On 25 July 1966, you were convicted at SCM for 
two specifications of being absent from your appointed place of duty, failure to obey a lawful 
order, and disrespect toward a petty officer. On 2 September 1966, you were counseled regarding 
your indebtedness and notified if there was no improvement within a reasonable time you would 
be processed for administrative discharge. On 16 September 1966, you were counseled for 
receiving marks below 3.0 in professional performance, military behavior, military appearance, 
and adaptability due to indebtedness and minor disciplinary problems. On 4 October 1966, you 
were notified of administrative separation processing for an established pattern of showing 
dishonorable failure to pay just debts. You did not consult with counsel and waived your right to 
an administrative discharge board. On 7 October 1966, your commanding officer recommended 
an under other than honorable characterization of service. On 4 November 1966, the discharge 
authority directed a general discharge, however, you were placed on probationary period for
6 months and counseled that any further violations could result in immediate discharge. Two 
months later, on 10 January 1967, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for UA.
Subsequently, on 20 January 1967, you were discharged with a general characterization of 
service by reason of unfitness. The Board in its review discerned no impropriety or inequity in 
the discharge.

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade 
your discharge and contention that your discharge was the result of being absent without leave 
for 2 weeks because you were denied leave to deal with a marital issue. The Board found that the 
general characterization of service was appropriately assigned given your two SCMs, NJP, and 
failure to adhere to the probationary guidelines set by the Chief of Naval Personnel in which 
resulted in your immediate discharge.  In regards to your contention, your record clearly 
indicates that your discharge was not the result of a two-week period of UA.

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,




4/9/2019
 
Executive Director