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

Docket No: 1015-19 
Ref: Signature Date 

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 4 February 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 on 19 October 1976. On 2 June 1978, you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of three periods of unauthorized absence (UA) totaling 89 days and missing ship’s movement.  During the period from 4 December 1978 to 12 November 1980, you received four non-judicial punishments (NJP) for six periods of UA totaling 60 days and missing ship’s movement.  On 19 March 1981, you were discharged from the naval service with a general under honorable conditions characterization of service within three months of your end of active obligated service (EAOS).
 
The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your character letters, your desire to upgrade your discharge, contentions that you are a pillar to the community, a law-abiding citizen, worked with the local fire and ambulance department for 20 years, achieved the rank of assistant ambulance chief, became the president of the ambulance department, and a EMT instructor.  The Board also noted your contention that you were young and immature when discharged.  However, the Board concluded that your misconduct and low marks in behavior outweighed your desire to upgrade your discharge. 

The Board noted that character of service is based, in part, on conduct and overall trait averages which are computed from marks assigned during periodic evaluations.  Your conduct average was 2.4. An average of 3.0 in conduct was required at the time of your separation for a fully honorable characterization of service.
 
In regard to your contention that you are a pillar to the community, a law-abiding citizen, worked with the local fire and ambulance department for 20 years, achieved the rank of assistant ambulance chief, became the president of the ambulance department, and a EMT instructor, the Board noted while commendable, your post service conduct does not excuse your conduct while enlisted in the Navy or the basis for your discharge.  In regard to your contention that you were young and immature when discharged, the Board noted that there was no evidence in the record showing 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. 

Sincerely,