DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 294-18 Ref: Signature date Dear : 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 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 three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 February 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, relevant portions of your naval record, as well as applicable statutes, regulations and policies. You enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 3 October 1973. During the period from 18 April 1974 to 28 February 1975, you received five nonjudicial punishment (NJPs) for four periods of unauthorized absence (UA) totaling 47 days, accessary after the fact (harboring another Marine who was in UA status), and two instances of failing to obey an order. On 30 June 1975, you were counseled regarding your frequent involvement with military authorities. On 14 October 1975, you submitted request for an undesirable discharge (UD) for the good of the service in order to avoid trail by court-martial for two specifications of failing to be at your appointed place of duty, two days of UA, and two specification of willful disobedience. Prior to submitting this request for discharge, you conferred with a qualified military lawyer, were advised of your rights, and warned of the probable adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge. On 28 October 1975, a Staff Judge Advocate review your request and found it to be sufficient in law and fact. On 4 November 1975, you to appeared before a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). It was determined that should do no prolonged walking, running, jumping, squatting, or marching. On 5 November 1975, the separation authority directed that you receive an UD for the good of the service. On 18 November 1975, your commanding officer (CO) forwarded a letter to the separation authority stating that you were waiting on the result of a PEB, and requested that your discharge be held in abeyance pending the results. On 1 December 1975, the PEB give you 10% disability, which you accepted the findings on 11 December 1975. On 15 December 1975, your CO forwarded a letter to separation authority stating that you had been granted an UD for the good of the service and indicated that you had your PEB. It was requested to be informed as to the type of discharge is warranted. On 17 December 1975, the PEB forwarded their Disability Evaluation Proceedings to the Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) for determination due to the administrative action you were pending regarding your request for discharge. On 5 January 1976, the Commandant of the Marine Corps endorsed the PEB proceedings, as well as recommended that you not receive disability processing, approval of your UD, and that you be indexed as “No action taken; member to be discharged under other provisions of law.” On 30 January 1976, SECNAV directed that “No action taken; member to be discharge under other provisions of law” thereby terminating your disability proceedings, and directed your UD discharge for the good of the service. Subsequently, your request for discharge was granted and on 13 February 1976, your received an other than honorable discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. As a result of this action, you were spared the stigma of a court-martial conviction, the potential penalties of a punitive discharge, and potential confinement at hard labor. The Board in its review of your entire record and application, carefully considered your desire to change your discharge. The Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change to discharge given your misconduct, which resulted in five NJP’s, the fact that you were warned of the consequences of further misconduct, charges being referred to a court-martial, and your request for discharge. The Board believed that considerable clemency was extended to you when your request for discharge was approved, and even if you were being considered for a medical discharge, separation for misconduct normally takes precedence over all other reasons for separation. Further, there is no provision of law or in Navy regulations that allows for recharacterization of service due solely to the passage of time. 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 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, 4/29/2019