DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

RLJ 
Docket No: I'"f,D(; -(?J 

JUL 2 2 2018 

5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6)
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6)
Dear 5 U.S.C. 
552(b)(6)
This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the 
provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552. After careful and conscientious 
consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was 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 threemember panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 17 April 2018. The names and votes of the members of the panel 
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 this 
Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted ofyour application, together 
with all material submitted in support thereof relevant portions of your naval record and 
applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 

You enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active service on 7 February 1973. On 
8 November 1973, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for a period of unauthorized 
absence (UA) totaling 10 days and missing movement. On 22 January 1974, you received NJP 
for UA totaling five days. On 3 May 1974, you were convicted at summary court-martial for 
multiple periods ofUA and multiple specifications of disobeying a lawful order. On 16 July 
1974, the SCM findings and sentence were disapproved and the charges dismissed. On 
16 October 1974, you received NJP for UA totaling 24 days. Subsequently, on 17 October 1974, 
you were notified of administrative discharge processing for unfitness due to frequent 
involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities. You did not consult with counsel 
and waived your right to an administrative discharge board. Your Commanding Officer 
recommended an undesirable (under other than honorable conditions) character of service. On 
31 October 1974, the StaffJudge Advocate reviewed the discharge and found it sufficient in law 
and fact and on 7 November 1974, the discharge authority approved the recommendation. Prior 
to your discharge, on 21November1974, you began another period ofUA. On 11 December 
1974, Headquarters U.S. Marine Corps authorized a discharge in absentia and on 16 December 
1974, you were discharged. 


The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade 
your discharge and contention that you were advised by your commander to leave due to severe 
and extenuating circumstances with your family. The Board concluded that these factors were 
not sufficient to warrant relief given the seriousness ofyour misconduct which consisted of 
multiple and lengthy periods of UA. Additionally, the Board noted that there is no evidence in 
your record, and you submitted none, to support your contention. Finally, the Board in its review 
discerned no impropriety or inequity in your discharge. 

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken 
at this time. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the submission of 
new and material evidence. New evidence is evidence not previously 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, 


Executive Director 

2