Docket No: 5587-19 
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 15 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 on 13 September 1976.  On 9 May 1978, you submitted a written request for discharge for the good of the service (GOS) to avoid trial by court-martial for being in an unauthorized absence (UA) status totaling 297 days.  Prior to submitting this request, you conferred with a qualified military lawyer, at which time you were advised of your rights and warned of the probable adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge.  Your request was granted and your commanding officer (CO) was directed to issue an other than honorable (OTH) discharge for the good of the service.  As a result of this action, you were spared the stigma of a court-martial conviction, as well as the potential penalties of such a punitive discharge.  On 19 May 1978, you were discharged. 
 
The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade your discharge and contentions that you went UA because your wife was eight months pregnant and needed your help, and three Sailors assaulted you.  The Board also noted your contentions that no one explained the type of discharge you were receiving and you never received legal representation.  However, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case given your misconduct and request for a GOS discharge in lieu of a trial by court-martial. 
 
In regard to your contentions that you went UA because your wife was eight months pregnant, and three Sailors assaulted you, the Board noted that there is no evidence in your record, and you submitted none, to support your contentions.  Regarding your contention that no one explained the type of discharge you were receiving and you never received legal representation, the Board noted that the record contains documented evidence which is contrary to your contention.  The record clearly shows that on 9 May 1978, you submitted a written request for discharge for the GOS to avoid trial by court-martial for being in a UA status for 297 days.  Prior to submitting this request, you conferred with a qualified military lawyer, at which time you were advised of your rights and warned of the probable adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge.  The Board found no evidence of an no error or injustice in your record that warrants an upgrade in the characterization of your 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,