Docket No: 7121-20
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 27 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, 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). 
 
The Board determined that your personal appearance, with or without counsel, would not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. 
 
You enlisted in the Marine Corps Reserve on 23 September 1977.  During the period from 4 to 28 May 1981, your commanding officer (CO) notified you of his attentions to recommend that you be involuntarily assigned to active duty due to failure to participate in 69 scheduled drills.  On 28 September 1981, the commanding general (CG) involuntary assigned you to active duty for 19 months.  On 21 October 1981, the CO notified you of the CG’s decision by certified mail.  On 9 February 1982, you requested a hardship discharge, which was disapproved on 5 March 1982.  On 10 March 1982, you were released from active duty with a general under honorable conditions discharge.  On 15 March 1982, you received non-judicial punishment for being in an unauthorized absence status totaling two days.  On 12 October 1982, your CO recommended that you be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve due to misconduct (shirking).    

On 8 November 1982, the CG approved your CO’s recommendation.  As a result, it was directed that you receive an other than honorable discharge due to unsatisfactory participation in scheduled drills.  On 22 September 1983, you were discharged.   
 
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 contentions that you were young, you missed drills due to your wife being pregnant and having problems, and that you needed to be home.  You further contend you served three years without any misconduct, and your recruiter told you to stop going to drills and you would receive a hardship discharge.  The Board also noted your contention that you worked as a deputy sheriff for 18 years.  Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief.  Specifically, the Board determined that your misconduct, as evidenced by your failure to attend scheduled drills, outweighed these mitigating factors.  Additionally, the Board noted you did not provide any documentation to support your contentions, nor any post-service documentation or advocacy letters in support of your request for an upgraded characterization of service.  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,