Docket No: 359-20 
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 you did not file your application 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 27 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, and 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 their understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the Board determined a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. 
 
You enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 3 March 1983.  On 12 September 1983, you were counseled regarding habitual lateness and that you were not recommended for promotion.  On 21 September 1983, your driving privileges were suspended due to traffic violations.  On 22 September 1983, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for being asleep on post and were awarded restriction, extra duties, and reduction in rank (RIR); the RIR was suspended for six months.  On 21 December 1983, you were again counseled that you were not recommended for promotion.  On 28 December 1983, you were convicted of driving while intoxicated (DWI) in civilian court.  On 6 January 1984, your driving privileges were revoked.  On 9 February 1984, you received a second NJP for unauthorized absence and were awarded forfeiture of pay, restriction, extra duties, and RIR.  On 13 February 1984, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct.  After being afforded all of your procedural rights, you waived them, and your case was forwarded to the separation authority for review.  Your commanding officer recommended that you receive an under other than honorable conditions (OTH) discharge and the separation authority approved your separation from the Marine Corps.  On 13 March 1984, you were discharged with an OTH characterization of service. 
 
You request the Board upgrade your discharge to general (under honorable conditions).  You assert your OTH discharge was unjust because your narrative reason separation is “Minor Disciplinary Infractions.”  You received an honorable discharge from Active Duty for Training on 18 March 1982.  You were meritoriously promoted to Private First Class on 25 August 1981, and promoted to Lance Corporal on 1 July 1982.  You state you do not defend the actions that resulted in being discharged, but believe an OTH does not fit the infractions.  You claim you were never informed you had the right to appeal the decision of my commanding officer and that you accepted your discharge believing you deserved it.  Since your discharge, you have been an exemplary citizen and stopped drinking, which you believe contributed to your unsatisfactory behavior.  You volunteer with veterans and Wounded Warriors.  You have a son who is very successful in the Air Force. 
 
The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your record of service and contentions and concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change to your discharge given your misconduct.  Additionally, the Board found no error in the records.  The Board noted that you provided no evidence to support your contentions.  Absent of such evidence, the Board relied upon the presumption of regularity and presumed that the officials acted in accordance with governing law/policy and in good faith.  The Board noted your post-service accomplishments, however, the Board determined that clemency was not warranted in your case.   
 
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 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,