Docket No: 7822-18 

Date: Ref Signature 

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 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 14 August 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, as well as applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 

You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active service on  May 1975. From the period beginning on  February 1976 to  August 1976 you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) on six occasions for the following offenses: five specifications of unauthorized absence (UA), nine specifications of UA from men’smuster, five specifications of UA from restricted men’s muster, violation of a general order, drunk and disorderly, willful disobedience of a lawfulorder from a superior petty officer, and two specifications of failure to obey a lawful order. On  September 1976, you were notified of the initiationof administrative separation proceedings by reason of frequent involvement. On  September 1976, you waived your procedural rights. On  September 1976, you were convicted at a special court-martial (SPCM) for five specifications of failure to obey a lawful order, failure to obey a lawful order from a superior petty officer, and five specifications of dereliction of duty. On  October 1976, your commanding officer recommended your discharge by reason of misconduct-frequent involvement. On November 1976, the discharge authority approved and directed an undesirable discharge by reason of misconduct-frequent involvement. On 19 November 1976, you received your seventh NJP for three specifications of UA and disobeying a lawful order and were discharged with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service. 

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your request to upgrade your discharge and contention that you were told your discharge would be upgraded in six months. Additionally you state, your case was reviewed by a board and you were addressed as another Sailor and their difficulties were reviewed in your case. The Board noted that there is no evidence in your record, and you submitted none, to support your contentions. 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. Further, there is no law or regulation that provides a discharge is automatically upgraded due to the passage of time. The Board concluded that the severity of your misconduct which resulted in seven NJPs, and one SCM outweighed your mitigating factors to upgrade your discharge. The Board in it review discerned no material error or injustice in the 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.