Docket No: 4444-19 
Ref: Signature Date
 
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 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 28 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, relevant portions of your naval record, as well as applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 
 
You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 4 April 1984.  From 1 February 1985 to 21 March 1985, you had three periods of unauthorized absence (UA) totaling 28 days.  On 22 April 1985, you submitted a written request for discharge for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial for the three UA periods and wrongful use of marijuana.  Prior to submitting the request, you consulted a qualified military lawyer, at which time you would have been advised of your rights and warned of the probable adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge.  The staff judge advocate reviewed your request and recommended approval on 21 May 1985.  On 21 May 1985, your commanding officer was directed by the discharge authority to discharge you with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service.  Before you could be discharged, you began a period of UA from 31 May 1985, to 6 June 1985, which caused the separation in lieu of trial by court-martial to be stayed.  After it was determined the new UA charges did not warrant trial by court-martial, on 17 June 1985, you were discharged with an OTH characterization of service. 
 
The Board carefully reviewed your application, weighed all potentially mitigating factors, and considered your contention that you suffered trauma which resulted in your UA periods and the drug abuse.  Specifically, you contend you were involved in an accident which caused the death of an elderly woman.  Due to this accident, you contend you began to drink and smoke marijuana to cope with the emotional impact because you were not offered any “mental health or coping skills” but only a “conversation by clergy.”  The Board also considered the advocacy letters submitted on your behalf which detail your post-service record.  Specifically, the Board considered each description of the care you provide for an elderly woman which you befriended because she had no family and was unable to fully care for herself.  Even under the liberal consideration standard, the Board discerned no procedural defect, impropriety, or inequity in your discharge and determined your UA and drug-related misconduct warranted an OTH characterization of service.  Further, the Board noted you did not provide supporting documentation with the initial request or in response to the Board’s 15 August 2019 letter, and concluded there was insufficient evidence of a mental health condition that may have mitigated your misconduct.  Finally, the Board noted you received a benefit from being allowed to separate with an OTH 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. 
 
Sincerely,