DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 

Docket No: 6733-20             
 Ref: Signature date 


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 21 December 2020.  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 19 June 1972.  According to your naval record, between 24 May 1973, and 24 April 1974, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) four times, for offenses including unauthorized absence and disobeying a lawful order.  On 25 September 1975, you were convicted by a Summary Court-Martial of unauthorized absence. In November 1975, you received a written warning due to your frequent involvement with military authorities.  On 15 June 1976, you received NJP for sleeping on post.  On 2 November 1976, you were released from active duty and received a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. Prior to your discharge, you were also counseled that you were receiving a reenlistment code that indicated you were not authorized to reenlist in the service. 

The Board carefully reviewed the materials that you provided and carefully considered your contentions.  You contend in your petition that you thought you were going to receive an automatic upgrade of your discharge characterization.  The Board noted that you provided no evidence to support this belief, and there is no law or regulation that supports this contention.  

The Board noted that your general discharge characterization was supported by your overall performance marks for conduct (3.8) as well as the fact that in the approximate four years that you served, you received nonjudicial punishment five times and you were also convicted by a court-martial.  Accordingly, the Board did not find evidence sufficient to warrant a change to your 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 desire to upgrade your discharge and your contention described above. 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 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, 

Executive Direcor