Docket No: 5162-20 
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 19 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, 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 14 September 1973.  On 24 March 1974, you began a period of unauthorized absence (UA) which lasted 30 minutes.  On 25 March 1974, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for the UA and for disobeying a lawful order.  On 5 Jun 1974, you received a second NJP for sleeping during firewatch.  On 20 August 1974, you received a third NJP for disobeying a lawful order and using disrespectful language.  On 22 November 1974, you began a second period of UA which lasted 1 hour and 30 minutes.  On 26 November 1974, you began a third period of UA which lasted 2 hours and 35 minutes.  On 29 November 1974, you received a fourth NJP for the two periods of UA.  On 31 March 1975, you received a fifth NJP for disobeying a lawful written order.  On 23 Jun 1975, you received your sixth NJP for disobeying a lawful order from a superior officer and failure to report.  On 28 July 1975, you were not recommended for reenlistment due to the type and the amount of your offenses.  On 1 August 1975, you began a fourth period of UA which lasted 10 days.  On 22 August 1975, you received a seventh NJP for the UA.  On 3 September 1975, you were accused of possession of marijuana, but you were not prosecuted due to being in a UA status.  On 10 September 1975, you began a fifth period of UA which lasted five days.  On 19 September 1975, you received your eighth NJP for the UA.  On 22 September 1975, you began a sixth period of UA which lasted 26 days.  On 11 November 1974, you began a seventh period of UA which lasted seven days and resulted in your apprehension by civilian authorities.  On 18 March 1976, you were placed in confinement for two months.  On 29 April 1976, you requested an undesirable discharge for the good of service to avoid a trial by court-martial.  On 5 May 1976, the Staff Judge Advocate determined that your request sufficient in law and fact.  On 7 May 1976, your request was approved, and on 13 May 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 in accordance with the Wilkie Memo.  These included, but were not limited to, your contention that your general discharge should have been automatically upgraded to an honorable character of service after six months.  The Board noted you did not submit any documentation or advocacy letters to be considered.  The Board further noted there is no provision of law or in Navy regulations that allows for re-characterization of service to be automatically upgraded after six months.  Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief.  Specifically, the Board determined that your repeated misconduct, as evidenced by your NJPs, 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,