DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 815-20 555-16 Ref: Signature Date Dear This letter is in reference to your reconsideration request received on 15 January 2020. You previously petitioned the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) and were advised that your applications had been disapproved. Your case was reconsidered in accordance with Board procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Sec’y of the Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Consequently, your application has been denied. Because your application was submitted with a new statement that was not previously considered, the Board found it in the interest of justice to review your most recent application. In this regard, your current request was carefully examined by a three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 February 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, as well as applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. You enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty service on 27 December 1984 for a four-year commitment. Less than a year later, on 12 October 1985, you entered a period of unauthorized absence (UA). You were later apprehended by civil authorities for a speeding ticket during this period of unauthorized absence (UA) while a student at Marine Corps Service Support Schools, and returned to military control on 12 February 1986. Your record reflects that you were home on convalescent leave after a car accident and that you unlawfully failed to return at the expiration of that leave. On 4 March 1986, you were found guilty at special court-martial of the aforementioned 126 days of UA. During your court-martial, you stated that the reason you entered a UA status was because of the harassment you experienced in Marine School. You stated under oath that you discussed the harassment with your Major and your First Lieutenant. However, your Major testified that he did not recall ever talking to you. He stated that he did speak with your mother during your UA, and that she asked about ways to get you out of the Marine Corps. The Lieutenant testified that you said that you were being harassed, but refused to state how you were being harassed or identify who was harassing you. You also testified that, during your UA, you were pursuing a civilian career, mailing resumés, and had a job offer with a Fortune 500 company at the time of your arrest. During your sworn testimony before sentencing at trial, you admitted that you had not conducted yourself properly and that you should have used your chain of command to resolve any issues, particularly because you held a Masters in Business Administration and should have known better. During your sworn court-martial testimony, you did not mention or raise the issues of racial or religious discrimination or personal hardship in response to open-ended questions by counsel and the military judge about your circumstances or explanations for your conduct and behavior. The Court sentenced you to confinement at hard labor for 100 days, forfeiture of $250 pay per month for three months, reduction in rank to E-1, and to be discharged from the naval service with a bad-conduct discharge (BCD). The sentence was approved. You were discharged from the Marine Corps on 6 March 1987, on the basis of the special court-martial conviction, and received a BCD. Based upon your enlistment and discharge dates, minus your 126 days of UA and 100 days of sentenced confinement, you served approximately 574 days of active duty of your four-year contract. You petitioned the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB), requesting that your characterization of service be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions). You made no other contentions at that time. On 15 November 1996, the NDRB determined that your discharge was proper as issued and that no change was warranted. The NDRB stated that, notwithstandingyour positive points of service, your “lengthy unauthorized absence of 126 days reflected [your] complete disregard for the requirements of military discipline and the needs of the service.” You again petitioned the NDRB, again making no other contention than that your characterization of service should be upgraded (albeit to honorable), and, on 31 October 2002, the NDRB again determined that your discharge was proper as issued and that no change was warranted. In this second denial, the NDRB stated it found your service record “devoid of any mitigating or extenuating factors sufficient to offset the seriousness of the offenses for which the discharge was awarded,” and that “[d]espite the noteworthy education credentials presented by the Applicant, the Board determined that the Applicant’s evidence of post-service conduct did not mitigate the misconduct for which he was discharged.” You previously petitioned this Board in 2005, 2009, and 2016, which applications were denied. In your current application, you again request an upgrade of your characterization of service from BCD to honorable, a change to your narrative reason for separation to “Convenience of the Government,” a change to your reentry(RE) code, and a change to you separation program number designator. You contend that clemency is warranted and that it is an injustice that you continue to suffer the adverse consequences of a BCD. You ask that performance marks, awards and decorations, and letters of recommendation in support of your application be taken into consideration. You state your record of promotion shows that you were generally a good service member and have been a good citizen since your discharge. You also contend that your deprived background, racial discrimination, and religious discrimination impacted your ability to serve successfully. You indicate that you sought a hardship discharge, but were unfairly told to “forget it,” and that you should have gotten a medical discharge. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, including your contention that you are entitled to an upgrade as a matter of clemency. The Board also noted your post-service success, including your nearly two decades of experience as a security practitioner. The Board reviewed the entirety of your available record and found that your special court-martial conviction supports your bad-conduct discharge. There is nothing in your record or court-martial transcript, including your sworn testimony, to demonstrate that you ever applied for a hardship discharge, or were qualified for a hardship discharge or medical discharge. Nor did you submit any such supporting evidence. Indeed, your service record and sworn testimony demonstrate the opposite. Accordingly, the Board determined that your court-martial proceedings, and the subsequent execution of the bad-conduct discharge, were issued without error or injustice, and that, under the totality of the circumstances, an upgrade to your characterization of service is not warranted. It is regretted that the circumstances of your reconsideration petition are such that favorable action cannot be taken. 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 the absence of new matters for reconsideration, the decision of the Board is final, and your only recourse would be to seek relief, at no cost to the Board, from a court of appropriate jurisdiction. 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,