Docket No: 9477-19 
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 it merits.  A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 October 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 on 3 November 1976.  During the period from 1 October 1976 to 3 April 1979, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) five times for absence from appointed place of duty, violation of a written order or regulation, two specifications of disrespect to a superior commission officer, willful disobedience of a superior officer, resisting apprehension, breach of peace, unauthorized absence (UA), and being incapacitated for the performance of duty.  Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities.  After you waived your rights, your commanding officer submitted your package to the separation authority (SA) recommending a general (under honorable conditions) discharge by reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities.  The SA approved the recommendation and directed your general discharge by reason of misconduct, and on 23 May 1979, you were discharged.   
 
The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade your discharge and contentions that your shipmates treated you with prejudice, you were accused of things you did not do, you did not receive any help from your command, and you tried to study for the next rank without assistance from superiors.   
 
The Board noted that there is no evidence in your record, and you submitted none, to support your contentions.  In addition, the record shows that you were notified of and waived your right to present your case to an administrative board.  In doing so, you gave up your first and best opportunity to advocate for retention, assistance, or a more favorable characterization of service.  The Board also noted that character of service is based, in part, on conduct and overall trait averages which are computed from marks assigned during periodic evaluations.  Your conduct average was 2.8.  An average of 3.0 in conduct was required at the time of your separation for an honorable characterization of service.  The Board concluded that the factors you presented were not sufficient to warrant upgrading your discharge given your misconduct and final marks in conduct at the time of your discharge.   
 
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,