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

Docket No: 3122-21 

Dear  

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Section 1552 of Title 10, United States Code.  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  26 May 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, and 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 Reserve on 13 February 1969.  During the period from 18 March 1969 to 23 May 1969, you were convicted by civilian authorities on six different occasions. Your offenses were intoxication, petty larceny, exceeding posted speed limits, minor in possession, profane and obscene language. On 28 July 1969, your commanding officer (CO) recommended that you be administratively discharged from the Navy with an other than honorable (OTH) character of service based on the frequency of your civil offenses.  Additionally, your CO noted you were awaiting trial for an additional civil offense.  On 1 December 1969, you were again convicted by civilian authorities of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. 

Subsequently, on 26 October 1970, you were notified via certified mail that you were being recommended for administrative discharge from the Navy by reason of misconduct due to civilian conviction; within your notification, you were also advised that you were appointed military counsel to act as your counsel in the administrative proceedings.  On 10 March 1971, an  ADB was convened, it found that you committed misconduct, and recommended that you be separated from the Navy with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. The separation authority approved the recommendation and directed your separation from the Navy with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service.  On 14 April 1971, you were so 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 desire to upgrade your discharge and contention that your general discharge should have been honorable.  Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief.  Specifically, the Board determined that your misconduct, as evidenced by seven civilian convictions, outweighed these mitigating factors.  The Board noted you did not submit any documentation or advocacy letters to be considered by the board in support of your petition.  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 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, 
6/14/2021 

Executive Director