Docket No: 2167-21 
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 14 June 2021.  The names and votes of the panel members will be furnished upon request.  Your request for clemency was 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). 
 
The Board determined that your personal appearance, with or without counsel, would 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 U.S. Navy Reserve and began a period of active duty on 4 February 1974.  From January 1975 to November 1975, you absented yourself from your unit on five separate occasions.  You were apprehended on 9 April 1976, for passing bad checks.  At the time of your apprehension your most recent period of unauthorized absence (UA) was 120 days.  As a result of the foregoing, you submitted a request for a discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court martial, on 27 May 1976, the separation authority approved your request. 

On 11 August 1978, you submitted a request for a review of your discharge to Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) with contentions that your discharge was inequitable in that if referred to trial, it would have resulted in a punitive discharge.  Your further contentions were that your capacity to serve was diminished by family and personal problems, and that your discharge was improper because of inadequate counseling.  Per NDRB’s decision, the discharge was proper and no change was warranted.   
 
The Board carefully reviewed your application and 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 desire to upgrade your characterization of service based on your contentions that you were unable to return to duty because of the death of your grandmother and birth of your daughter.  The Board noted, although you had a history of being in an unauthorized status, upon being notified of the death of your grandmother you were placed on emergency leave.  At the time, your unit was outside of the Continental United States.  You assert that you made an attempt to extend your leave once the carrier returned to its homeport in Norfolk, Virginia, but were unable to speak with anyone due to being placed on hold.  
 
Throughout your testimony at the NDRB hearing, you stated your priorities placed your family and your presence with them before all else, and during your fifth period of UA, you decided to stay home.  The Board further noted that, aside from your driver’s license, DD 214, and birth/death certificates, you did not submit advocacy letters or post-service documents to be considered for clemency purposes.  Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief.  Specifically, the Board determined that your repeated misconduct outweighed these mitigating factors.  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, 
6/21/2021
Executive Director