DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 983-18 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 26 March 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 reenlisted in the Navy on 7 May 1980. On 10 August 1981, you were convicted by summary court martial (SCM) of four specifications of unauthorized absence (UA) totaling 36 days. During the period from 7 July 82 to 1 November 1982, you received two non-judicial punishments (NJP) for three specifications of absence from appointed place of duty. On 23 June 1983, you were also convicted by a second SCM of two specifications of UA totaling 24 days. On 2 May 1984, in accordance with your pleas of guilty, you were convicted by special court- martial (SPCM) of three specifications of UA totaling 11 days, and three specifications of failure to go to your appointed place of duty. You were sentenced to confinement for 75 days, forfeitures of pay, reduction in rank to paygrade E-1, and to be discharged from the naval service with a bad-conduct discharge (BCD). After the BCD was approved at all levels of review, you were discharged on 11 February 1985, in absentia. The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade your discharge, and your contentions that you went UA because you were ill while on leave and had no way of contacting your command, and that you are currently being treated for medical issues that began while you were on active duty. However, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief given your repeated misconduct and lengthy periods of UA. In regard to your contention that you went UA because you were ill while on leave and had no way of contacting your command, and that you are currently being treated for medical issues that began while you were on active duty, the Board noted that there is no evidence in your record, and you submitted none, to support these contentions. Under the totality of the circumstances, the Board in its review discerned no probable material error or injustice in the discharge. The Board also believes that you may be eligible for Veteran’s benefits which accrued during your prior periods of service. However, your eligibility is a matter under the cognizance of the Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA). In this regard, you should contact the nearest DVA office concerning your rights, specifically, whether or not you are eligible for benefits based on these other periods of service. 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, 6/10/2019