Docket No:  4770-19 
Ref: Signature date 


 
Dear  : 
 
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 30 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 reenlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 12 February 1975.  On 26 August 1976, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for disobeying a lawful order.  On 30 September 1976, you again received NJP for disobeying a lawful order.  On 13 August 1981, you pleaded guilty to second degree assault in a court in Island County, Washington.  Subsequently, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to a civil conviction.  On 23 September 1981, you consulted with counsel and requested an administrative discharge board.  On 30 October 1981, an administrative discharge board substantiated your misconduct and recommended that you be discharged from the naval service with a general characterization of service.  On 8 December 1981, your commanding officer concurred.  On 25 January 1982, you requested an expedited discharge.  On 29 January 1982, the separation authority concurred with your CO’s recommendation and directed that you be separated with a general discharge.  You received a general discharge on 29 January 1982. 
 
The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade your discharge and your assertions that your discharge was based on a civil charge that should have had no effect on your military record.  In addition, the Board considered your assertions that you had inadequate legal representation, there was a failure to produce your witnesses, and the charges against you were biased.  The Board concluded these factors and assertions were not sufficient to warrant a change to your discharge given your misconduct, which resulted in two NJPs, a civil court conviction, and substantiated misconduct at an administrative discharge board.  Please note that civil conviction is one of the specific types of misconduct on which administrative separations are based.  With respect to your contentions of ineffective assistance of counsel, failure to produce witnesses, and biased charges, the Board noted that there is no evidence in your record to support your contentions, and you submitted none.  The Board noted that the serious nature of the underlying misconduct in your civil conviction and administrative discharge board could have resulted in an other than honorable discharge.  Considering this, the Board concluded that your receipt of a general discharge was generous.   
 
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, 
 
9/16/2020

Executive Director