Docket No: 4274-21 
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 9 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, 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 and began a period of active duty on 27 August 1964.  On 16 March 1966, you received a counseling entry (CE) documenting you were assigned a mark of 2.8 in military bearing after being placed on report on 8 January 1966 for not reporting knowledge of consumption of an alcoholic beverage to proper authority.  On 10 December 1966, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for being absent from your appointed place of duty, for being derelict in the performance of your duties, and for misappropriation of government funds.  On 14 March 1967, you were issued another CE assigning you marks of 2.8 in professional performance adding that you work when under supervision but otherwise tend to ignore tasks; a 2.8 in military bearing due to your hesitant attitude towards accepting authority; and a 2.8 in military appearance due to your tendency to be sloppy.  On 20 September 1967, you were again issued a CE assigning you marks of 2.8 in professional performance due to your tendency to ignore tasks when unsupervised and a 2.6 in military behavior due to not accepting authority regularly.  On 26 October 1967, you received a second NJP for being in an unauthorized absence status.  On 28 December 1967, you received another CE documenting you were not recommended for reenlistment which you acknowledged and signed.  You were released from active duty on 03 January 1968 with a general characterization of service.  On 26 August 1970, you fulfilled your obligation as a reservist and were discharged with a general characterization of service.   
 
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 your contentions that you entered under the buddy system program, and had you not requested to be released early, you would have been discharged with an honorable characterization of service.  You add you would also like to receive USAA benefits and remove the appearance of dishonorable conduct.  The Board noted 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 misconduct and negative counseling entries 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, 

8/20/21
Deputy Director