Docket No: 5177-20 
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 6 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 31 January 1968.  On 2 April 1969, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for wrongfully and dishonorably making targets during rifle score qualifications.  On 8 January 1970, you submitted a voluntary statement admitting the use of illegal drugs.  On 28 January 1970, you requested a discharge for the good of service to escape trial by court-martial.  On 27 March 1970, your commanding officer (CO) endorsed your request for a discharge for the good of service and forwarded your package to the discharge authority (DA).  On 16 April 1970, your administrative separation proceedings were determined to be sufficient in law and fact by the Staff Judge Advocate.  On 18 April 1970, the DA approved and directed your discharge with an other than honorable characterization of service by reason of wrongful use of marijuana.  You were discharged on 18 May 1970.   
 
On 5 June 1974, the Navy Discharge Review Board (NDRB) upgraded your discharge characterization of service to general in accordance with Secretary of Defense Memorandum of 13 August 1971.  On 26 April 1977, you requested a second discharge characterization upgrade through the Department of Defense Discharge Review Board (Special) (DDRB (S)).  On 2 June 1977, DDRB (S) sent you a letter requesting missing documentation.  On 1 July 1977, you sent a letter to DRB (S) in which you admitted your rejection to the war in  and your psychological rejection of any identification with the military during this conflict.  On 8 October 1978, DDRB (S) determined that your discharge characterization should not be change.  
 
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 your discharge.  The Board noted you did not submit any documentation or advocacy letters to be considered in support of your petition.  Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief.  Specifically, the Board determined that your repeated misconduct 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,