Docket No: 4753-19 
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 16 June 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 on 7 September 1977.  During the period from 2 October 1978 to 8 June 1979, you received three non-judicial punishments (NJP) for absence from your appointed place of duty, failure to go to your appointed place of duty, two specifications of breaking restriction, and two specifications of failure to obey a lawful order.  On 31 January 1980, a special court-martial (SPCM) convicted you of eight specifications of unauthorized absence (UA) totaling 58 days and seven specifications of wrongfully obtaining telephone service.  Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of convenience of the government (COG) due to substandard personal behavior.  After you waived your rights, your commanding officer (CO) recommended a general under honorable conditions discharge by reason of COG due to substandard personal behavior.  The discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed a general under honorable conditions discharge due to COG.  On 21 May 1980, you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of UA totaling 19 days.  On 3 June 1980, you were discharged. 

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade your discharge and contentions that you are not the same kid you were 37 years ago, and you have been a productive citizen of the United States.  However, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant upgrading your discharge given your misconduct on active duty and the marks you received at discharge. 

The Board noted that characterization of service is based, in part, on conduct and overall trait averages which are computed from marks assigned during periodic evaluations.  Your conduct average was 1.6. An average of 3.0 in conduct was required at the time of your separation for an honorable characterization of service. 

In regard to your contention that you are not the same kid you were 37 years ago, 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.  Regarding your contention that you have been a productive citizen of the United States, the Board noted that, while commendable, your post service conduct does not excuse your conduct while enlisted in the Navy or the basis for 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.