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

Docket No: 7115-19 
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 7 April 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.
 
Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance, with or without counsel, would not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the Board determined a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record.
 
You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 12 September 1980.  On 25 September 1981, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for unauthorized absence (UA) and were awarded an oral reprimand and extra duties.  On 30 April 1982, you received a second NJP for UA and wrongful use of marijuana.  You were awarded forfeiture of pay, restriction, extra duties and reduction in rank.  The restriction and extra duties were suspended for six months.  You were counseled and advised that failure to take corrective action could result in administrative separation and judicial proceedings.  On 7 May 1982, your suspended sentence was vacated and you received a third NJP for UA and being drunk on duty. You were awarded forfeiture of pay, restriction, and extra duties.  On 21 May 1982, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct.  After being afforded all of your procedural rights, you waived them, and your case was forwarded to the separation authority for review.  On 25 June 1982, you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) for violating Articles 86 (UA), 91 (disrespect), 92 (failure to obey orders), and 134 (communicating a threat) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  You were sentenced to forfeiture of pay and confinement.  On 22 July 1982, you received a fourth NJP for UA and failure to obey orders.  You were awarded forfeiture of pay, restriction, and extra duties.  On 27 July 1982, your request for permission to return to civilian community prior to the completion of your administrative separation processing was approved.  On 30 July 1982, you were discharged with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service. 

You request the Board upgrade your discharge.  You assert you were a young recruit and made immature decisions.  Additionally, you state your discharge is considered dishonorable by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).  The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as 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 four NJPs and a SCM.  Whether or not you are eligible for benefits based on your service is a matter under the cognizance of the VA.  If you have been denied benefits, you should appeal that denial under procedures established by the VA.  Further, there is no provision of law or in Navy regulations that allows for an upgrade in the characterization of service solely due 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,