DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 4065-19 Ref: Signature Date 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 26 March 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 duty on 7 January 1964. On 17 December 1965, the Chief of Naval Personnel (CNP) notified Commanding Officer (CO), , that information had been received that you were involved with civilian authorities according to a report from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Specifically, you had been arrested in on 29 November 1965, charged with burglary, and released to shore patrol. On 29 December 1965, you were convicted by civilian court, and after an appeal by your attorney for a new trial was denied, you were sentenced to 60 days in jail, which was suspended, a fine, and probation. Despite your CO’s recommendation that no further action was required, because the offense involved “moral turpitude,” CNP directed administrative processing. Your CO and the Enlisted Performance Evaluation Board (EPEB) recommended retention and, on 29 July 1966, CNP approved the recommendations but warned that “further misconduct may result not only in disciplinary action, but in reprocessing for administrative discharge.” On 30 September 1966, you were arrested by civilian authorities in on charges of robbery and attempted robbery. On 28 October 1966, you were convicted by civilian court and sentenced to five years confinement, which was suspended except for six months to be served in the custody of the County Sheriff. Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct and elected your right to an administrative discharge board (ADB). On 3 January 1967, the ADB determined the preponderance of the evidence supported a finding of misconduct and recommended that you be separated from the Navy with an undesirable discharge. Your CO concurred with the ADB’s recommendation, as did the EPEB, and the discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed that you be discharged by reason of misconduct with an undesirable characterization of service. On 20 February 1967, you were discharged. The Board carefully reviewed your application, weighed all potentially mitigating factors, and considered your explanation of the events surrounding your second civilian offense and your contention that you should not have to live with the stigma of an undesirable discharge any longer. Specifically, the Board considered your age at the time of the offense, your willingness to accept “full responsibility” and “blame no one,” and your service in . The Board also considered your post-service conduct and accomplishments and the advocacy letters submitted on your behalf. Unfortunately, after careful consideration of your contentions, the Board did not find evidence of an error or injustice that warrants upgrading your characterization of service. Even under the liberal consideration standard, the Board found your repeated civilian misconduct warranted an undesirable characterization of service. 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, 4/20/2020