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

Docket No: 2194-18
Ref: Signature Date 

Dear :

 
This letter 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 April 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, as well as applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 

You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 22 November 1967.  On 8 December 1967, you were notified of administrative discharge action for misconduct due to a fraudulent enlistment.  You failed to disclose your pre-service glue sniffing.  At that time, you elected to have your case heard before an administrative discharge board (ADB).  On 14 December 1967, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for unauthorized absence of 65 minutes.  On 4 January 1968, an ADB report states, in part, that you perpetrated a fraudulent enlistment, and recommended that you receive a general discharge, under honorable conditions.  On 23 January 1968, your commanding officer forwarded your case to the separation authority recommending you receive a general discharge.  On 6 February 1968, the separation authority concurred and directed that you receive a general discharge.  You received your general discharge on 23 February 1968.

The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, rsuch as your record of service, your desire to upgrade your discharge, and that you feel that the captain’s mast was in error. The Board relies on a presumption of regularity to support the official actions of public officers and, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, will presume that they have properly discharged their official duties. There was no evidence in the record, and you provided none, to show that the captain’s mast was in error. Under the presumption of regularity the captain’s mast for 65 minutes of UA was without material error or 
injustice. The Board concluded your mitigating factors were not sufficient to warrant 
recharacterization of your discharge given your failure to disclose your pre-service glue sniffing, which an ADB determined was fraudulent enlistment. 

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 submission of new matters. 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,

                                                                             
7/15/2019
Executive Director