Docket No: 10683-19 
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 30 September 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 and began a period of active service on 2 April 1980.  On 5 June 1980, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for possession of marijuana.  On 1 August 1980, you were determined not to be drug dependent and you were recommended for retention in the naval service following your drug related misconduct.  On 24 February 1981, you received your second NJP for possession of marijuana.  On 21 May 1981, you received NJP for possession of a wooden pipe with marijuana residue, missing movement, and unauthorized absence (UA).  On 30 June 1981, you received NJP for three specifications of UA from your appointed place of duty, and wrongful use of marijuana.  On 2 November 1981, you successfully completed treatment for substance abuse.  On 15 December 1981, you received NJP for UA from your appointed place of duty, and sleeping on watch.  On 30 June 1982, you received NJP for the theft of two turkeys-property of the US Navy.  On 15 July 1982, you were notified of the initiation of administrative separation proceedings by reason of misconduct-frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military or civil authorities.  On 22 July 1982, you exercised your right to consult with counsel and waived all rights to which entitled pertaining to the proposed separation.  On 27 July 1982, your commanding officer recommended your discharge with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service by reason of misconduct-frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military or civil authorities.  On 3 August 1982, the discharge authority approved your discharge.  You were discharged on 4 August 1982.  Block 24 of your DD Form 214 erroneously reflects “general other than honorable.” 
 
The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade your characterization of discharge, which you state was unjust.  You explained the marijuana related to your first incident of misconduct belonged to another Sailor.  You contend, when the charges were not dropped you began a period of UA.  You contend, you were unaware there was a turkey in your duffle bag, you are not a thief, and you were framed twice.  You expressed remorse for your actions.  Your application did not include evidence to support your contentions of injustice, nor was there supporting evidence in your naval records.  After careful consideration of your contentions, the Board did not find evidence of an error or injustice that warrants upgrading your characterization of service or reenlistment code. 
 
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,