Docket No: 7077-19 
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 you did not file your application 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 for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 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, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 
 
You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 22 May 1979.  On 3 January 1980, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for unauthorized absence (UA) and missing movement and were awarded forfeiture of pay.  On 22 August 1980, you received a second NJP for UA and were awarded restriction and extra duties.  On 17 March 1981, you received a third NJP for possession of marijuana and were awarded forfeiture of pay, restriction, extra duties and reduction in rank (RIR); the RIR was suspended six months.  On 31 March 1981, you were counseled that further deficiencies in conduct or performance could result in administrative separation and/or judicial proceedings.  On 22 April 1981, you received a fourth NJP for provoking gestures and assault and were awarded forfeiture of pay.  On 26 April 1981, you received a fifth NJP for dereliction of duty and were awarded forfeiture of pay (suspended six months).  On 3 June 1981, you received a sixth NJP dereliction of duty and were awarded forfeiture of pay (suspended six months).  On 2 July 1981, you received a seventh NJP for UA, disrespect, and disobeying a lawful order.  Your previously suspended punishments were vacated.  On 7 July 1981, administrative discharge action was initiated.  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 an under other than honorable conditions (OTH) discharge and the separation authority approved your separation from the Navy.  On 23 July 1981, you were discharged with an OTH characterization of service. 
 
You requested that the Board correct your record to remove the NJP dated 2 July 1981, in which you were unjustly charged with UA from 31 May 1981 to 27 June 1981.  You assert that the duty officer knew that you and your roommate had changed duty hours, that your roommate did not show up for duty and you were charged with UA even though you were on approved leave.  In support of your petition, you attached character letters from your pastor and a co-worker who is a veteran.  You have also implicitly requested that the Board upgrade your discharge; however, you did not specify the characterization of service you are seeking. 
 
The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your record of service and contentions and concluded these factors were not sufficient to remove the NJP or warrant a change to your discharge given your misconduct that resulted in seven NJPs, four of which occurred after you had been warned about the potential for administrative separation.  The Board noted that you provided no evidence to support your contentions.  Absent of such evidence, the Board relied upon the presumption of regularity and presumed that the officials acted in accordance with governing law/policy and in good faith.  Lastly, 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 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,