Docket No: 3857-20 
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 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  
16 September 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. 
 
You enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 28 May 1969.  On 3 February 1970, you received non-judicial punishment for four specifications of unauthorized absence (UA).  On 18 January 1971, you submitted a written request for separation for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial for a period of UA from 19 October 1970 to 17 January 1971.  Prior to submitting this request, you conferred with a military lawyer at which time you were advised of your rights and warned of the probable adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge.  As part of this discharge request, you admitted your guilt to the foregoing period of UA and acknowledged that your characterization of service upon discharge could be other than honorable (OTH).  Your request was granted, however, the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) recommended that you receive a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service.  The separation authority concurred with the SJA, and on 18 January 1971, you were discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. 
 
The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, including your desire to upgrade your discharge.  The Board considered your assertion that your honorable discharge was authorized directly by the Inspector General of Headquarter  ; however, due to a lack of understanding of the true nature of your honorable discharge by your commanding officer, he downgraded your discharge to a general (under honorable conditions).  You also state, there was an original agreement that your discharge would be fully honorable and meritorious after completing a risky confidential off base collaboration with the  City Police Department and the  Law Enforcement Division.     
 
The Board noted that there is no evidence in the record, and you presented no such evidence, to support your assertions.  The Board carefully considered your youth and immaturity, and commends you for your post service conduct; however, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case based on the seriousness of your misconduct, and your request for discharge to avoid trial by court-martial.  Accordingly, the Board, in its review, discerned no impropriety or inequity in your discharge. 
 
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,