Docket No: 5459-20 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 17 May 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 and began a period of active duty on 30 December 1996. On 2 September 1999, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for drunk and disorderly conduct and underage drinking. On 14 September 1999, you were counseled concerning underage drinking and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action. On 5 January 2000, a medical officer at a Consolidated Substance Abuse Counseling Center evaluated you and reported that you met the criteria for “Alcohol Abuse, not in remission.” You were recommended for an expeditious administrative separation as an aftercare treatment failure. On 6 February 2000, you received NJP for disrespect, being absent from your appointed place of duty, operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol, and communicating a threat. On 18 February 2000, you were counseled concerning an alcohol related incident, unauthorized absence, and disrespect toward non-commissioned officers. On 7 April and 15 June 2000, you received NJP for consuming alcohol while in a restricted status, disobedience, deliberately kicking in the door of another Marine, being absent from your appointed place of duty, and spraying your nickname on government property. On 26 July 2000, you were notified of administrative discharge action for misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions. After being afforded your procedural rights, you elected to waive your right to have your case heard before an administrative discharge board. Your case was forwarded to the separation authority with a recommendation that you be separated from the Marine Corps with and general (under honorable conditions) discharge. On 11 August 2000, a staff judge advocate found your case to be sufficient in law and fact to support your administrative discharge. However, the separation authority directed that you be separated by reason of misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service. On 22 August 2000, you were discharged from the Marine Corps with an OTH 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 statement that you want a general (under honorable conditions) discharge as recommended by your commanding officer, and that you believe your years of commitment and positive service outweigh your misconduct making you worthy of a general discharge. 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 four NJPs, and the fact that you were warned of the consequence of failing to take corrective action, 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 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, 5/26/2021 Executive Director