DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 2047-21 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 relevant portions of your naval record and your application, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found the evidence submitted 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 April 2021. The names and votes of the panel members 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 the 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, applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, to include the 25 July 2018 guidance from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness regarding equity, injustice or clemency determinations (Wilkie Memo). You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 30 October 1979. On 12 May 1980, you began a period of unauthorized absence (UA) which lasted four-days. On 16 May 1980, you began a second period of UA which lasted twenty-one days. On 1 June 1980, you were charged by civil authorities with theft in excess of $8,254.95 in U.S. currency belonging to Ship’s Café, Inc. On 17 July 1980, you began a third period of UA which lasted one hundred fifty-six days. On 20 February 1981, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for UA and unlawful use of drugs. On 24 February 1981, your commanding officer (CO) requested a medical examination due to drug abuse. On 26 February 1981, you were diagnosed by a medical officer with marijuana dependency and recommended for outpatient counseling. On 2 March 1981, you were counseled for drug abuse and advised that failure to take corrective action may result in the initiation of administrative separation. On 9 March 1981, your CO recommended your discharge by reason of misconduct due to conviction by civil authorities. On 13 March 1981, you were diagnosed by a medical officer with unsatisfactory response to outpatient counseling. On 17 March 1981, you were notified of the initiation of administrative separation proceedings by reason of misconduct due to conviction by civil authorities, at which point, you elected and administrative discharge board (ADB) hearing, in person, and counsel representation. On the same date, you signed a memorandum of agreement in which you decided to waive the ADB and accepted a general discharge characterization of service. On 27 March 1981, your CO recommended a general discharge by reason of misconduct. On 22 April 1981, you began a fourth period of UA which lasted four-hours and thirty-minutes. On 27 April 1981, you received a second NJP for UA, and intent to deceive and sign an official record. On 27 August 1981, an ADB found you guilty of committing misconduct due to conviction by civil authorities, and recommended an other than honorable (OTH) discharge characterization of service. On 3 September 1981, the discharge approval authority ordered an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct-convicted by civil court. On 15 September 1981, you were discharged. The Board carefully considered all potentially mitigating factors to determine whether the interests of justice warrant relief in your case in accordance with the Wilkie Memo. These included, but were not limited to, your contention that all your civil court charges were dropped. Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief. Specifically, the Board determined that your repeated misconduct, as evidenced by your NJPs and your apparent conviction by civil court, outweighed these mitigating factors. The Board noted you did not submit any documentation or advocacy letters to be considered. Accordingly, given the totality of the circumstances, the Board determined that your request does not merit relief. 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, 5/5/2021 2