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

Docket No: 2887-19 
Ref: Signature Date    

Dear 

This is in reference to your application of 14 December 2018 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 7 April 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, and 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 Navy and began a period of active duty on 13 October 1967.  On 18 November 1968, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for improperly abandoning your watch.  On 9 September 1969, you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of three specifications of unauthorized absence (UA) totaling 157 days and missingship’s movement.  You were sentenced to confinement for three months and a bad conduct discharge (BCD).  After the BCD was approved at all levels of review, on 6 January 1970, you were discharged.
 
The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors in your case, including your desire to upgrade your discharge and contention that you went UA because your wife attempted suicide and was committed to a psychiatric hospital.  The Board also noted your contentions that you requested a hardship discharge but was told none was available and since discharge, you worked as a union carpenter, became an insurance agent, and an ordained deacon. 

Regarding your contentions that you went UA because your wife attempted suicide and was committed to a psychiatric hospital, and you requested a hardship discharge but were told none was available, the Board noted that there is no evidence in your record, and you submitted none, to support your contentions.  Regarding your contention since discharge, you worked as a union carpenter, became an insurance agent, and an ordained deacon, the Board noted while commendable, your post service conduct does not fully mitigate your conduct while enlisted in the Navy or the basis for your discharge. The Board concluded that there was no probable material error or injustice in your discharge.
 
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,