Dear This letter 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 the entire record, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found that 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 three- member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 July 2019. 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 of your application and personal statement, together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of your naval record, as well as applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance with or without counsel would not materially add to its 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 Marine Corps on 28 December 1998. On 6 December 1999, you went to non-judicial punishment (NJP) for an unauthorized absence (UA) lasting 3 days. On 9 May 2000, your suspended forfeitures were vacated and ordered executed due to continuing misconduct. Two months later, on 10 July 2000 you received “Page 11” counseling warnings for several instances of misconduct to include multiple UAs, multiple occasions of failure to obey a lawful order, your civil arrest for underage drinking/public intoxication, and conduct unbecoming a Marine. Approximately two weeks later, on 21 July 2000, you went to NJP for UA for failing to go to your prescribed place of duty, and for three specifications of failing to obey a lawful order. Three months later, on 18 October 2000, you received your third NJP for again failing to obey a lawful order. Your punishment included reduction to pay grade E-1. That same day you were notified that you were being processed for an administrative separation from the naval service for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. You were advised of, and elected to waive your rights to consult with counsel, or to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB). Ultimately, on 12 January 2001, you were discharged from the Marine Corps with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service. In November of 2004, the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) denied your petition to upgrade your characterization of service, and determined that your discharge was proper as issued and that no change was warranted. The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors in your case, including your contentions in your detailed personal statement that included, but were not limited to: that the reasons you were discharged were minor and not a reason to be “kicked out” of the Marine Corps, that your behavior was not other than honorable, that you placed second in your Personnel School class and also made the Meritorious Board for Corporal early, and your notable post-service accomplishments. However, the Board found that your contentions and mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief in your case given the overall seriousness of your pattern of misconduct on active duty. The Board also noted that the record shows that you were notified of, and waived, your procedural rights in connection with your administrative separation. In doing so, you gave up your first and best opportunity to advocate for retention or a more favorable characterization of service. Accordingly, the Board determined that there was no probable material error or injustice in your discharge, and that your misconduct substantiated your receipt of an OTH discharge. The Board also reviewed your application under the recent guidance provided in the Under Secretary of Defense’s memorandum of 25 July 2018 entitled, “Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations” (USD Memo). The purpose of the USD Memo is to ease the process for Veterans seeking redress and assist Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records “in determining whether relief is warranted on the basis of equity, injustice, or clemency.” The USD Memo noted that “increasing attention is being paid to…the circumstances under which citizens should be considered for second chances and the restoration of rights forfeited,” and that “BCM/NRs have the authority to upgrade discharges or correct military records to ensure fundamental fairness.” The USD Memo sets clear standards and principles to guide BCM/NRs in application of their equitable relief authority, and further explains that boards shall consider a number of factors to determine whether to grant relief, such as positive or negative post-service conduct, including any arrests or convictions. However, even in light of the USD Memo, the Board nevertheless concluded that, under the totality of the circumstances and your pattern of discreditable involvement with military and civilian authorities, your request does not merit relief. It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken. 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.