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

Docket No: 9442-17 
Ref: Signature date

Dear

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to 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 4 February 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 and 
applicable statutes, regulations and policies.

You enlisted and began a period of service on 27 October 1976. You went on a period of 
unauthorized absence (UA) from 1 May 1979 to 9 February 1984, totaling 4 years, 9 months and 
8 days in UA status. You were notified of the initiation of administrative separation proceedings 
for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense, at which point, you elected counsel and 
waived your procedural rights. On 7 November 1984, you submitted a request for voluntary 
administrative separation due to defective enlistment, and conditionally waiving your 
administrative discharge board (ADB). You stated, in part, you were assigned to be an 
embarkation clerk, however, you were promised a specialty in the electronics field. You stated, 
you discovered the defect upon consultation with your counsel. On 15 November 1984, you 
again waived review of your case by an ADB. On 17 November 1984, the commanding general 
referred your case for review by an ADB. On 28 December 1984, the commanding general 
further determined your case could not be adjudicated at a court martial or non-judicial 
punishment due to an administrative error that occurred at the time you entered into UA status. 
On 14 January 1985, your case was reviewed by the personnel procurement division which 
confirmed you enlisted for ground field electronics option.  On 11 April 1985, an ADB was
convened, voted 3 to 1 that you be separated for misconduct due to commission of a serious 
offense, and voted 2 votes other than honorable to 2 votes general characterization of service. 
On 30 July 1985, the discharge authority approved and directed a general discharge by reason of 
misconduct due to commission of a serious offense, and you were subsequently discharged on 2 
August 1985.

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade 
your discharge as well as contentions that you completed your required time, you need to be 
credited with proper service time and back pay for approximately 5 years. During a period of 
unauthorized absence, you are not entitled to pay or active service time. The records reflect you 
were in UA status 4 years, 9 months, and 8 days. You have submitted no evidence that your 
required service was completed by the beginning date of your UA. The Board concluded there is 
insufficient evidence to warrant relief in your case given the severity and extent of your 
misconduct.

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,




4/11/2019

Executive Director