DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
             
Docket No: 10299-18  
Ref:  Signature Date 

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 for Correction of Naval Records (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, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 January 2020.  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, as well as applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 

You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 3 October 1972.  On 25 April 1973, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for unauthorized absence (UA) totaling 16 days.  On 12 September 1973, you received NJP for another UA. In March 1974, your record shows you acknowledged receiving an Administrative Remarks entry that states you were assigned marks of 2.6 in Professional Performance. It also noted “                work is usually not up to standards.  He has shown no interest and he does just enough to get by.” He “requires constant supervision to keep him on his cleaning station.  When placed on working parties, the POIC constantly calls the division PO informing him that         is not doing his part.  He gets along with his fellow shipmates, although he has created problems by not doing his part of the work assigned therefore requiring someone else in having to do it.”  On 2 July 1974, you acknowledged receiving an Administrative Remarks entry with the following marks and comments: 

Assigned a mark of 2.0 in Professional Performance because does little as possible on any task assigned to him and has made no effort to improve his work.   is lazy and his work, when he does any, is sloppy. 

Assigned a mark of 2.0 in Military Behavior because he had absolutely no respect for orders, regulations, 
or the Navy, and the Petty Officer in Change had to spend most of his time looking for him when he needs him for anything. 

Assigned a mark of 3.2 in Military Appearance.  His best asset is his military appearance, which was always good. 

Assigned a mark of 2.6 in Adaptability because he caused some trouble in the division by not doing his share and therefore having the slack taken up by the rest of the division. 

Your original service record was incomplete and did not contain any documentation pertaining to your separation from the Navy.  The Board noted that you provided no evidence to support your assertions.  Absent such evidence, the Board relied upon the presumption of regularity and presumed that the officials acted in accordance with governing law/policy and in good faith.  Based on your Report of Separation from Active Duty (DD 214) you received a general discharge on 2 July 1974, due to being non-potential petty officer material. 

Characterization of service is based in part on conduct marks assigned on a periodic basis.  Your conduct average was 2.4. At the time of your service, a conduct average of 3.0 was required to be considered for an honorable characterization of service. 

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your record of service, and desire to have your characterization of service upgraded.  The Board also considered your assertions that false evaluation marks and lies about you not performing your duties were the causes of your general discharge. You contend that you stood your watch in port and out at sea, and you refused to sign your evaluation because of false lies.  The Board concluded these factors and assertions were not sufficient to warrant re-characterizing your discharge given your misconduct, which resulted in two NJP’s, multiple substandard evaluations, and your failure to attain the required average in conduct to be considered for an honorable discharge. 

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken.  You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the submission of new matters, which will require you to complete and submit a new DD Form 149.  New matters are those not previously presented to or 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, 


2/17/2020