Docket No: 5335-19 
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 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 1 July 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, relevant portions of your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 
 
You enlisted in the Navy on 30 October 1978.  During the period from 30 July 1979 to 17 July 1981, you received seven non-judicial punishments (NJP) for unauthorized absence (UA) totaling seven days, two specifications of assault, two specifications of derelict in the performance of duty, using provoking words toward a superior officer, and disrespectful in language toward a superior officer.  Subsequently, you were notified of an administrative action to separate you from the naval service for misconduct due to frequent involvement with military authorities.  After you waived your rights, your commanding officer (CO) recommended discharge under other than honorable (OTH) conditions for misconduct due to frequent involvement with military authorities.  The discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed separation under other than honorable conditions for misconduct.  On 12 August 1981, you were so discharged. 
 
The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade your discharge and contentions that you were accused of an incident and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) conducted an investigation, which found you innocent and you were very young and did not realize what was right or wrong.  The Board also noted your contention that you were told your OTH discharge would change to honorable in six months.  The Board concluded that your current characterization does not reflect an error or injustice that merits corrective action. 
 
Regarding your contention that you were accused of an incident and NCIS conducted an investigation which found you innocent, the Board noted that there is no evidence in your record, and you submitted none, to support your contention.  In regard to your contention that you were very young and did not realize what was right or wrong, the Board noted that your record clearly reflected your misconduct and 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 were told your OTH discharge would change to honorable in six months, the Board noted that there is no provision in law or regulations that allows for re-characterization of a discharge automatically after six months, due solely to the passage of time. 
 
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.