Docket No: 6125-20
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 for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 December 2020.  The names and votes of the members of the panel 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 this 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. 
 
You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 11 July 1966.  According to the information in your record, during the period from 25 January 1968 to 10 March 1969, you received five separate instances of non-judicial punishment (NJP) for unauthorized absence (UA) totaling 21 days, three specifications of absence from appointed place of duty, failure to be at appointed place of duty, and wrongfully using provoking gestures.  Although the Board lacked your entire service record, the Board relied on a presumption of regularity that you were notified of the recommendation that you be discharged by reason of convenience of the government (COG) due to frequent involvement.  After you waived your procedural rights, your commanding officer (CO) recommended a general under honorable conditions discharge by reason of COG due to frequent involvement.  The discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed a general under honorable conditions discharge by reason of COG.  On 11 June 1969, you were discharged.  As stated previously, the Board relies on a presumption of regularity to support the official actions of public officers and, in the absence of substantial evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Petitioner, the Board presumes that you were properly discharged from the Marine Corps. 
 
The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as character letters, your desire to upgrade your discharge, and your contentions that you had only one infraction during your enlistment, you did not realize your discharge was less than honorable and you received the Good Conduct Medal and National Defense Service Medal.  The Board also noted your contentions that since discharge, you have served your community, your society, been a contributing law-abiding citizen, served as the managing director for a legal firm and are currently serving as a substitute teacher.  However, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case given your misconduct and final marks received at discharge. 
 
The Board noted that character of service is based, in part, on conduct and overall trait averages which are computed from marks assigned during periodic evaluations.  Your conduct average was 3.8.  An average of 4.0 in conduct was required at the time of your separation for an honorable characterization of service. 
 
In regard to the contention that you had only one infraction during your enlistment, the Board noted that the record contains documented evidence which is contrary to your contentions.  The record reveals that prior to discharge, you received five NJP’s.  In regard to your contentions that you did not realize your discharge was less than honorable and you received the Good Conduct Medal, the Board noted that there is no evidence in your record, and you submitted none, to support your contentions.  In regard to your contention that you received the National Defense Service Medal, the Board noted that a Marine’s service is characterized at the time of discharge based on performance during the current enlistment.  Regarding your contentions that since discharge, you have served your community, served your society, been a contributing law-abiding citizen, served as the managing director for a legal firm, and are currently serving as a substitute teacher, the Board noted that while commendable, your post service conduct does not excuse your conduct while enlisted in the Marine Corps or the basis for your discharge. 
 
In reviewing the circumstances of your separation and characterization of service, the Board considered the totality of the circumstances to determine whether relief is appropriate today in the interests of justice in accordance with guidance provided by the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (Wilkie Memo of 25 July 2018).  Accordingly, the Board considered and acknowledged your positive contributions to the Marine Corps, the length of your active duty service to our nation, and your post-discharge achievements.  Even considering these potentially mitigating factors in accordance with the above referenced guidance, the Board did not find that relief was in the interest of justice.  The Board concluded that your discharge characterization was issued without error or injustice, and that corrective action is not warranted. 
 
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken.  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,