Docket No: 7388-19 
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 23 June 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 will not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the Board determined that 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 6 May 1974.  On 22 May 1974, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for disobeying a lawful order and disrespect.  On 16 September 1974, you received NJP for 5 days of unauthorized absence.  On 8 January 1975, you received NJP for 66 days of unauthorized absence.  On 30 April 1975, you received NJP for 8 days of unauthorized absence.  On 19 May 1975, you commenced another period of unauthorized absence; you returned on 27 May 1975.  On 28 May 1975, you were notified that you were being recommended for administrative separation.  On 30 May 1975, you again commenced a period of unauthorized absence and remained gone until your apprehension on 26 April 1976.  On 3 May 1976, you requested administrative separation in lieu of trial by court-martial (SILT) for two specifications of unauthorized absence and possession of marijuana.  On 21 May 1976, the staff judge advocate to the convening authority found the package legally sufficient and recommended administrative separation with an other than honorable (OTH) discharge.  On 24 May 1976, the convening authority directed that you be separated from the naval service with an OTH characterization of service.  You received an OTH discharge on 7 June 1976. 
 
The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade your discharge and your assertions that other than AWOL, all charges are false; you were not told the truth and were manipulated to believe that you could continue in the service; no one ever explained that you would receive an OTH; and you want to set the record straight.  The Board also considered your desire to obtain a veterans identification card.  The Board did not find evidence of an error or injustice in your discharge.  The Board noted that you requested and were granted a good of the service discharge in order to escape trial by court-martial and the associated punishments and stigma.  The Board concluded that the mitigating factors and assertions were not sufficient to warrant a change to your discharge given your misconduct, which resulted in four NJPs and an approved request for a SILT. 
 
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, 
                                                                     

9/13/2020


Executive Director