Docket No: 3173-19 
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 for Correction of Naval Records (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, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 July 2020.  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, together with all material submitted in support thereof, 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 30 June 1972.  Your record reflects two periods of unauthorized absence (UA) from 12 January 1973 to 24 January 1973 and 12 February 1973 to 3 March 1973, but does not indicate adjudication of this misconduct.  On 22 February 1973, you were charged by civilian authorities for assault and battery on a fellow prisoner in the county jail, confined for ten days, and then released to military authorities on 3 March 1973.  On 11 January 1974, you were convicted by special court-martial for two periods of UA from 20 June 1973 to 4 September 1973 and 24 October 1973 to 27 October 1973, three specifications of disobeying a lawful order, and seven specifications of insubordinate conduct toward a noncommissioned officer.  You were sentenced to confinement and forfeiture of pay.  Your record reflects a non-adjudicated period of UA from 17 September 1973 to 24 September 1973.  On 21 May 1974, you received nonjudicial punishment for a 15-day UA and using disrespectful language toward a superior commissioned officer.  Your record reflects two additional periods of UA from 29 November 1974 to 2 December 1974 and 8 January 1975 to 15 January 1975, and a third period from 13 February 1975 to 14 February 1975, during which you were in the hands of civilian authorities due to possession of marijuana.  On 14 February 1975, you were convicted by civilian authorities for possession of marijuana and were sentenced to four months of confinement.  Subsequently, on 7 July 1975, you were notified of pending administrative separation by reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement with military and civilian authorities.  After you waived your procedural rights, your commanding officer (CO) recommended an undesirable discharge by reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement, but, before your administrative discharge was approved by the discharge authority, you began another period of UA on 29 August 1975, which lasted until 31 August 1975.  Subsequently, on 19 September 1975, you submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service to escape trial by court-martial for the February 1975 and August 1975 UA periods and failure to obey a lawful order.  After the staff judge advocate determined the request was sufficient in law and fact, the discharge authority directed your CO to discharge you for the good of the service with an undesirable characterization of service.  As a result, you were spared the stigma of a court-martial conviction, as well as the potential penalties of a punitive discharge.  You were discharged on 16 October 1975. 
 
The Board carefully reviewed your application, weighed all potentially mitigating factors, and considered your contention that you were “supid only – sir.”  Even under the liberal consideration standard, the Board discerned no procedural defect in your discharge.  The Board noted that, in requesting a discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, you would have been required to meet with a military defense counsel and to admit that you were guilty of the misconduct alleged.  Finally, the Board noted you received a benefit from being allowed to separate with an undesirable characterization of service instead of risking greater punishment at a court-martial.  The Board thus concluded that there is no probable material error or injustice in your record warranting corrective action. 
 
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.