DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
                                                                                          
Docket No: 4114-21 
Ref: Signature Date 


Dear Petitioner: 
 
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 11 August 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 on 11 April 1980.  On 23 March 1981, a special court-martial (SPCM) convicted you of larceny, larceny of government property, and unlawful entry with intent to commit larceny.  During the period from 24 February to 15 March 1982, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) on two occasions.  The offenses included six specifications of absence from your appointed place of duty, failure to obey a lawful order, provoking gestures, three specifications of missing muster, and breaking restriction.  On 27 August 1992, a summary court-martial (SCM) convicted you of 3 specifications of unauthorized absence totaling 16 days.  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 (CO) forwarded your package to the separation authority (SA) recommending your discharge with and other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service.  The SA approved the recommendation, and on 1 October 1982, 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 discharge was incorrect because trading goods for other services was a common occurrence in the Navy.  The Board noted that there is no evidence in your record, and you submitted none, to support your contention.   
    
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 your two NJPs, an SPCM, and an SCM, 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 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, 
9/5/2021
Executive Director