Docket No: 5155-20 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 3 February 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, and 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 on 23 Jul 1973. On 21 March 1974, you received nonjudicial punishment for reading a book while you were on watch. On 14 April 1974, you received nonjudicial punishment for disobeying an order. On 6 July 1974, you were convicted by a summary court-martial for a period of unauthorized absence that resulted in you missing movement by neglect. Next, on 22 August 1974, you were convicted by a summary court-martial for escaping from confinement, damaging the telephone in the ship’s brig, and striking a lance corporal on the arms, chest, legs and back. You then received nonjudicial punishment again on 4 February 1975 for another period of unauthorized absence. Finally, you commenced two lengthy periods of unauthorized absence, from 15 July 1975 to 21 July 1975, and then again from 30 August 1975 to 19 November 1975. You were facing court-martial charges for these periods of unauthorized absence, and, after consulting with counsel, on 3 February 1976, you chose to submit a request for discharge in order to escape trial by court-martial for the foregoing periods of unauthorized absence. Your request was accepted, and on 2 March 1976, you were discharged 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 including in accordance with the Wilkie Memo. These included, but were not limited to, your desire to upgrade your discharge as set forth in your DD Form 149, including its written and documentary attachments. You contend that your characterization of service should be upgraded due to several factors, including that you had a difficult childhood, which resulted in being raised by your grandmother, and that you enlisted in the Marine Corps at age 17. You further contend that your misconduct while in the Marine Corps was, on balance, not of the level that should result in an undesirable discharge, including that it was not violent, and mostly consisted of minor, non-violent, offenses. Finally, you contend that, post-discharge, you have lived a life devoted to public service, putting country, family, and community first. You have been widely recognized from various public leaders for your efforts volunteering with organizations such as the Latin American Youth Center and the Community Youth Center. It has been 45 years since the time of your discharge, and you have raised a family and now assist with raising grandchildren. During that time period, you have dedicated your life to your community and you donate your time and talents whenever able. Based on all of the foregoing, and the factors set forth in your petition, you contend that the “Wilkie memo” factors support an upgrade of your characterization of service. The Board carefully considered your request and considered each of the contentions that you set forth. The Board commends you on your extraordinary efforts in volunteering, community engagement, and raising your family. Based upon its review, however, the Board concluded that the mitigating factors that you set forth were insufficient to warrant relief. Specifically, the Board determined that the wide variety and frequency of misconduct while you served in the Marine Corps did not support granting relief. You have contended that your misconduct did not include any acts of violence and that your misconduct consisted mostly of relatively inconsequential military offenses. However, your naval record sets forth a wide variety of acts of misconduct, for example, you were convicted by a summary court-martial for escaping a ship’s brig, damaging the brig’s telephone system, and striking a non-commissioned officer in several places. In terms of the variety of offenses, these included reading a book while you were on watch. In the Marine Corps, the importance of being alert while on watch is paramount, and reading a book, and not paying attention, is considered very serious. You also missed movement by neglect after you were on a period of unauthorized absence for approximately a day. Accordingly, given the totality of the circumstances, and the variety and frequency of your misconduct while in the Marine Corps, 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,