Docket No: 4454-20 
Ref: Signature Date 

Dear : 
 
This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Section 1552 of Title 10, United States Code.  After careful and conscientious consideration of relevant portions of your naval record and your application, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found the evidence submitted 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 15 January 2021.  The names and votes of the panel members 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 the 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, applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, to include the 25 July 2018 guidance from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness regarding equity, injustice or clemency determinations (Wilkie Memo). 
 
You enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 27 February 1995.  On 18 December 1996, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for four days of unauthorized absence (UA) and failure to obey a lawful order from a senior noncommissioned officer.  On 14 January 1997, you began a second period of UA which lasted 114 days and resulted in your apprehension by civilian authorities.  On 10 July 1997, you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) for the 114 day UA.  On 4 August 1997, you were notified that you were being recommended for discharge by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.  Specifically, in addition to your UA, you were arrested by State Patrol for possessing and discharging an unregistered weapon.  You consulted with counsel and waived your right to a hearing before and Administrative Separation Board.  On 7 August 1997, the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commanding General reviewed your package and determined it to be sufficient in law and fact.  On the same date, your discharge was approved, and you were subsequently discharged on 24 November 1997, with an other than honorable characterization of service. 

The Board carefully considered all potentially mitigating factors to determine whether the interests of justice warrant relief in your case in accordance with the Wilkie Memo.  These included, but were not limited to, your desire to upgrade you discharge and your contentions that you were given permission to go home by your “shop chief,” but later found out that the information he provided you was a lie; and you were being encouraged by individuals in your command and by the legal team to simply get out.  You also state that you are now seeking an upgrade in order to get medical assistance from the Department of Veterans Affairs.  The Board noted you that there is no evidence in you record, and you provided none to support your contentions.  Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief.  Specifically, the Board determined that your misconduct, as evidenced by your lengthy UA and civilian arrest for possession and discharge of an unregistered weapon, outweighed these mitigating factors.  Accordingly, given the totality of the circumstances, the Board determined that your request does not merit relief. 
 
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,