DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 

Docket No: 6743-19 
Ref: Signature Date 

Dear

This is in reference to your application of 28 June 2019 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) 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 2 March 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 and began a period of active duty on 23 June 1977 for four years with a 24-month binding extension.  On 30 May 1980, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for unauthorized absence (UA) and insubordination.  On 13 October 1980, you received a second NJP for missing movement and disobeying a lawful order.  On 21 November 1980, you received a third NJP for falsifying a watch record.  On 23 December 1980, you wrote a letter to your commanding officer expressingyour dissatisfaction with the Navy.  You wrote, in part:  “I feel I owe the service nothing. I am formally requesting a general discharge under honorable conditions. I shall not cease my efforts in any form until this request is approved.”  On 
19 February 1981, an administrative action to separate you from the naval service was initiated for misconduct due to frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with civilian or military authorities.  After being afforded all of your procedural rights, you waived them, and your case was forwarded to the separation authority for review.  Your commanding officer recommended that you receive a general discharge and the separation authority approved your separation from the Navy.  On 27 July 1981, you were discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. 

You request that the Board upgrade your discharge to honorable.  You assert you were pulled out 
of school and sent to the fleet to learn the rest of my rate “on the job.” Therefore, you claim the two extra years tacked onto your enlistment for school were void and your enlistment should have ended at four years. When your command refused your demand for a discharge, you refused to take tests to progress in rank.  You feel the terms of your discharge were “a slap” by your command, or perhaps your command needing to set a precedent to discourage others in a similar position regarding school.  Lastly, you state you served the four years you owed the Navy. 

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors in your case, including your record of service and contentions and concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change to your discharge given your misconduct that resulted in three NJPs.  The Board noted that your enlistment contract was for six rather than four years.  Further, there is no provision of law or in Navy regulations that allows for recharacterization of service 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. 

Sincerely,