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 17 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 31 July 1963.  On 6 September 1966, you went to a Summary Court-Martial (SCM), and pursuant to your guilty plea, you were convicted of unauthorized absence (UA) lasting 25 days.  On 7 March 1967, you went to a Special Court-Martial (SPCM), and pursuant to your guilty plea, you were convicted of a 105-day UA.  As punishment, you were sentenced to confinement for 90 days, reduction in rank to the lowest enlisted paygrade, and to be discharged from the naval service with a bad conduct discharge (BCD).  On 29 March 1967, the Convening Authority approved the SPCM sentence as mitigated.  On 1 May 1967, you filed a request for an immediate execution of your BCD.  On 2 May 1967, your BCD was ordered executed.  Ultimately, on 5 May 1967, you were discharged from the Navy with a BCD. 
 
The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such your contentions that your brother decided to leave without permission so you did too to look after him, and that you have tried to live a good, clean life and have worked in law enforcement.  However, the Board found that your contentions and mitigating factors were not sufficient to warrant upgrading your discharge or granting any other relief in your case given the overall seriousness of your misconduct and disregard for good order and discipline while on active duty.  Moreover, there is no provision of federal law or in Navy/Marine Corps regulations that allows for a discharge to be automatically upgraded after a specified number of months or years.  Additionally, absent a material error or injustice, the Board generally will not summarily upgrade a discharge solely for the purpose of facilitating VA benefits, or enhancing educational or employment opportunities.  Accordingly, the Board determined that there was no error or injustice in your discharge, and the Board found that your serious misconduct merited your receipt of a BCD. 
 
The Board also noted that, although it cannot set aside a conviction, it might grant clemency in the form of changing a characterization of discharge, even one awarded by a court-martial.  However, the Board determined that, despite your contentions, this is not a case warranting any clemency.  You were properly convicted at a SPCM of serious misconduct, and the Board did not find any evidence of an error or injustice in your discharge that warrants upgrading your BCD. 
 
Additionally, the Board reviewed your application under the recent guidance provided in the Under Secretary of Defense’s memorandum dated 25 July 2018 entitled, “Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations” (USD Memo).  The purpose of the USD Memo is to ease the process for veterans seeking redress and assist Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records “in determining whether relief is warranted on the basis of equity, injustice, or clemency.”  The USD Memo noted that “increasing attention is being paid to…the circumstances under which citizens should be considered for second chances and the restoration of rights forfeited,” and that “BCM/NRs have the authority to upgrade discharges or correct military records to ensure fundamental fairness.”  The USD Memo sets clear standards and principles to guide BCM/NRs in application of their equitable relief authority, and further explains that boards shall consider a number of factors to determine whether to grant relief.  However, even in light of the USD Memo, the Board still concluded that, given the totality of the circumstances, your request does not merit relief. 
 
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,