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

Docket No: 1431-19 2332-06 
Date: Ref Signature 

Dear
 
This letter is in reference to your reconsideration request dated 3 January 2019.  You previously petitioned the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) and were advised that your application had been disapproved.  Your case was reconsidered in accordance with Board procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Sec’y of the Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004).  After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that 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 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 and began a period of active service on 27 October 1971.  On 25 March 1975, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for failure to go at the prescribed time to your appointed place of duty.  On 2 August 1975, you submitted a request for discharge in lieu of trail by court-martial as a result of the following charges: three specifications of violation of article 92 (wrongful possession of 57.3 grams of marijuana, wrongful transferring of 57.3 grams of marijuana, and wrongful selling of 57.3 grams of marijuana).  As part of your request, you admitted your guilt to the foregoing misconduct.  On 26 August 1975, the discharge authority disapproved your request for separation in lieu of trial by court-martial.  On 15 September 1975, you were convicted at special court-martial (SPCM) of the aforementioned three specifications of violation of article 92.  You were awarded reduction in rank, confinement, forfeitures of pay, and to be discharged from the naval service with a bad-conduct discharge (BCD).  On 7 November 1975, you began appellate leave.  On 22 July 1976, the final appellate review affirmed your conviction and sentence and directed the execution of your BCD.  On 15 November 1976, you were so discharged. 

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade your discharge, and your contentions that the date of discharge listed on your DD Form 214 is incorrect.  However, the Board determined that the date of discharge listed on your DD Form 214 is correct.  Further, with regard to your request for upgrade to the characterization of your service, the Board determined that the evidence that you provided, even though not previously considered by the Board, was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. 
 
It is regretted that the circumstances of your reconsideration petition 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 the absence of new matters for reconsideration, the decision of the Board is final, and your only recourse would be to seek relief, at no cost to the Board, from a court of appropriate jurisdiction.
 
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,