Docket No: 5380-19 
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 8 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, 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 3 March 1965.  During the period from 24 August 1965 to 18 October 1966, you received four non-judicial punishments (NJP) for disrespect, absence from your appointed place of duty on two occasions, failure to obey a lawful regulation, unauthorized absence, disobedience of an order, wrongful appropriation, robbery, sleeping in an unauthorized space, being out of uniform while standing watch, failure to obey a lawful order, and having an unauthorized firearm in your locker.  Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative action to separate you from the naval service because of misconduct due to frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities.  You were advised of, and elected your procedural rights, to consult with and be represented by military counsel, and your right to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB). 
 
Prior to the convening of your ADB, you received NJP on 7 February 1967 and 2 March 1967 for an unauthorized absence, not having your armed forces identification card in your possession, and breaking restriction.  On 29 March 1967, your ADB was convened and found that you committed misconduct and recommended administrative discharge from the naval service with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service.  Your commanding officer (CO) concurred with the ADBs recommendation.  The Chief of Naval Personnel (CNP) approved the ADBs recommendation.  However, CNP desired that the execution of your other than honorable discharge (OTH) be held in abeyance by the commanding officer (CO) pending further observation of your conduct and fitness for retention in the naval service.  CNP further stated that if at any time during your probationary period of 12 months or the expiration of your active obligation service, whichever is sooner, you violate any of the terms presented to you, then the CO is authorized to execute the OTH discharge.  On 13 October 1967, you received NJP for two specifications of assault and two specifications of attempted robbery.  As a result of your misconduct you were in violation of the provisions of your probationary period and processed for administrative discharge.  On 24 November 1967, you were discharged with an OTH character of service by reason of unfitness. 
 
The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors in your case, including your desire to upgrade your discharge.  The Board considered your statement to include your contentions that your service was honest and faithful because of your service history.  You further contend that your recruiter told you that you would be transferred to the Army after the first six months of service with the Navy.  Because of your service, you now suffer from diabetes, tinnitus, survived prostate cancer, and you have had both hips replaced.  You believe that your health issues were caused by your exposure to Agent Orange and red lead during your service.  Additionally, your lawyer told you to plead guilty and to take the OTH, and you were told that your discharge would automatically change after six months.  Your young age, youth, and immaturity made it difficult to adjust to military service, and the manner in which you were discharged was inconsistent with disciplinary standards at the time of your service.  After careful consideration, the Board concluded that these factors were insufficient to warrant relief in your case because of the seriousness of your repeated misconduct that resulted in seven NJPs. 
 
The Board noted that you were given an opportunity to earn a better characterization of service when you were retained in the Navy, but you failed to do so as evidenced by your NJP of 13 October 1967.  In view of the forgoing, the Board discerned no material error or injustice in the discharge action that would warrant a change in your characterization of service. 
 
In regard to your contention concerning your character of service automatically changing after six months, there is no provision of law or in Navy regulations that allows for recharacterization of service solely due to the passage of time.  In regard to your contention concerning your recruiter’s statement, there is no evidence in the record, and you presented none, to support your contention.  In regard to your health concerns, you should contact the nearest Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) office concerning your rights, specifically, whether or not you are eligible for benefits based on your periods 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,