DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 3324-21 Ref: Signature Date Dear Petitioner: 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 26 July 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 02 June 1972. On 18 December 1972, you received your first non-judicial punishment (NJP) for being in an unauthorized absence (UA) status for 10 days. On 26 January 1973, you received a second NJP for sleeping while on watch. On 1 March 1973, you received a counseling entry which documented an assignment of a mark of 2.8 in professional performance for not taking military life seriously, causing your work to suffer. This entry also stated that with a little more maturity, you should improve. On 13 September 1973, you received a second counseling entry assigning you a mark of 2.8 in professional performance, a mark of 2.0 in military behavior, and a mark of 2.8 in military appearance documenting inadequate work and little initiative on your part. Also on 13 September 1973, you received a third NJP for being UA for seven days. Your last NJP was held on 19 July 1974, for being UA for 91 days, and for missing movement on 16 April 1974 and 29 April 1974. On 25 July 1973, you were discharged with an other than honorable characterization of service for the good of the service. Your record is incomplete in that it does not contain all of the paperwork with regard to your administrative separation. Absent of such evidence, the Board relied upon the presumption of regularity and presumed that the officials acted in accordance with governing law/policy and in good faith, and that you were properly discharged. 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 discharge and your contentions that your discharge was voluntary and you were told you would be able to submit for a change of characterization of service after six months provided you had no legal issued after being discharged. You acknowledge you did not submit said request, but you would like to have your discharge changed to “honorable,” as you served for almost two years of your contract honorably, despite your multiple NJPs and declining performance counseling entries. The Board noted you did not submit advocacy letters or post-service documents for clemency purposes. The Board further noted that there is no provision of law or in Navy regulations that allows for re-characterization of service due solely to the passage of time. Even applying liberal consideration, the Board determined there was insufficient evidence of an error or injustice that warrants an upgrade to your characterization of service. Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief. Specifically, the Board determined that your 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, 8/5/2021 Executive Director