Docket No: 11155-18 
Ref: Signature Date 

Dear  
 
This is in reference to your application of 12 November 2018 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 that 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 3 December 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, relevant portions of your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 
 
You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 12 May 1981.  During the period from 30 September 1981 to 26 February 1982, you received three non-judicial punishments (NJP) for two specifications of possession and use of marijuana, 13 specification of failure to go to your appointed place of duty, attempted burglary, unauthorized absence (UA) totaling 39 days, two specifications of missing ship’s movement, and disobeying a lawful order.  Subsequently, you were notified of an administrative action to separate you from the naval service by reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement with military authorities.  After you waived your rights to consult with an attorney and present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB), your commanding officer (CO) recommended discharge with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service by reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement with military authorities.  Your CO noted that you “demonstrated a negative, rebellious attitude toward the Navy and authority.”   The discharge authority approved your CO’s recommendation and directed separation with an OTH characterization of service by reason of misconduct.  On 5 April 1982, you were so discharged. 
 
The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors in your case, including your desire to upgrade your discharge and contentions that you were entrapped for the marijuana misconduct and that you were a teenager and did not know any better.  In this regard, the Board concluded that seriousness of your misconduct outweighed your desire to upgrade your discharge.   Regarding your contention that you were entrapped for the marijuana misconduct, the Board noted that there is no evidence in your record, and you submitted none, to support your contention.  The Board also noted that the record shows that you were notified of and waived your right to present your case to an ADB.  In doing so, you gave up your first and best opportunity to question the validity of one of your three NJPs and to argue for a more favorable characterization of service.  Regarding your contention that you were a teenager and did not know any better, the Board noted that the evidence of record did not show that you were not responsible for your conduct or that you should not be held accountable for your actions. 
 
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. 
 
                                                                 
Executive Director