Docket No: 5934-19 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 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 6 January 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 Marne Corps and began a period of active duty on 1 July 1970. Your record reflects that you were in an unauthorized absence (UA) status from 1 February 1971 through 2 April 1971, and that you were returned to military control by apprehension. Two weeks later, On 19 April 1971, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) and were reduced to pay grade E-1 and awarded 30 days of correctional custody. On 1 June 1971, you again absented yourself without authorization until apprehended on 11 August 1971. You were confined from 11-12 August 1971, and then restricted by your unit. Four days later, on 16 August 1971, you broke restriction and again absented yourself without authorization until apprehended on 23 November 1971. On 23 November 1971, you were placed in confinement awaiting trial by special court-martial. At all times during the aforementioned periods, you were a student a . A 31 January 1972 letter in your record from the staff judge advocate (SJA) states that you admitted your guilt to the foregoing offenses and, on 24 January 1972, requested an administrative discharge to avoid a trial by court-martial for the aforementioned misconduct. The SJA’s communication indicates that you were returned from a UA status by apprehension on three occasions and that your average conduct mark was 1.6. Your commanding officer endorsed the request for the good of the service, and directed that you be discharged with an undesirable characterization. On 3 February 1972, the separation authority agreed with the request and recommendation and directed your discharge from the naval service with an undesirable discharge. Pursuant to your request, you were discharged from the Marine Corps on 23 February 1972, on the basis of the good of the service, and received an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service and a reentry (RE) code of RE-4. In your petition to the Board, you ask for an upgrade to your characterization of service from OTH to honorable. You provide background information detailing significant hardships in your youth and state that when you entered the Marine Corps at age 17, you intended to make a career of the military. You also contend that immediately after joining, you began to have issues and were mistreated. You provide details of mental and physical abuse, including being assaulted by your drill sergeant and other recruits. You state you went home because you were tired of being mistreated and being a “punching bag” for others. You assert that you received a Good Conduct Medal, and state that post-discharge, you have worked to improve yourself. You state you have become an evangelical preacher and try to help those most in need. You also provide several letters of recommendation which in part detail your commitment to your family, your work in the church and ministry. The Board, in its review of your entire application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, including your youth, the maltreatment you describe that you faced in the Marine Corps, and your post-service achievements and accomplishments. With regard to the allegations of abuse and mistreatment, the Board noted that your statement is the sole evidence supporting your assertions, which are not otherwise supported by your service record. Nonetheless, the Board took into consideration your claim that you were severely mistreated. Even in consideration of your background, claims of abuse in the Marine Corps, and your post-service conduct and achievements, the Board found that the length and frequency of your UAs could not be overcome. The Board noted that you were apprehended and returned to the Marine Corps on three occasions. Additionally, the Board noted that although the start of your period of eligibility for a Good Conduct Medal is documented in your record, you did not achieve the requisite period of qualifying conduct to earn the medal and never received it. In consideration of the frequency and length of your UAs, the Board concluded that the OTH characterization of service was appropriate. Accordingly, the Board determined that your record does not reflect an error or an injustice, and the other than honorable discharge was proper as issued. 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.