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

Docket No: 1708-19 
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 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 18 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. 
 
Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. 
 
You enlisted in the Marine Corps on .  On 21 January 1966, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for unauthorized absence (UA) totaling five days.  On 21 April 1966, you were convicted by summary court-martial of UA totaling 15 days.  On 17 January 1967 and 18 May 1967, you received two more NJPs for three specifications of UA totaling 20 days and 10 hours.  Three months later, on 16 August 1967, you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of UA totaling 12 days.  On 9 January 1968, a second SPCM convicted you of five periods of UA totaling 30 days, and of breaking restriction.  You were awarded confinement for 90 days, forfeitures of pay, and to be discharged from the naval service with a bad-conduct discharge (BCD).  After the BCD was approved at all levels of review, on 19 April 1968, you were so discharged. 

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade your discharge and your contentions that you were drinking to overcome your problems in the Navy and you completed a treatment program in the early 80s and remained alcohol free. The Board also noted your contentions that you could not “deal with the deaths of family and friends” while in the Navy, that you were 17 years old when you joined, and while aboard the  , you were a dedicated sailor with many accomplishments being a firefighter in the boiler room.  However, the Board concluded that the severity of your misconduct and final SPCM conviction outweighed your desire to upgrade your discharge. 
 
In regard to your contentions that you were drinking to overcome your problems in the Navy and you could not deal with the deaths of family and friends while serving in the Navy, the Board noted that there is no evidence in your record, and you submitted none, to support your contentions.  In regard to your contention that you completed a treatment program in the early 80s and remained alcohol free, 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 17 years old when you joined the Navy, the Board noted that the evidence of record did not show that you were not responsible for your conduct or that you should not be held accountable for your actions.  In regard to your contention you were a dedicated sailor with many accomplishments being a firefighter in the boiler room, the Board noted that a sailor’s service is characterized at the time of discharge based on performance during the current enlistment. 
 
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.