Docket No: 8273-20 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, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 June 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 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, including 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 on 8 April 1987. On 30 November 1988, you received a written counseling concerning meeting your financial responsibility. On 2 February 1989, you received nonjudicial punishment for disobeying an order to bring in all of your checks and checkbook and for issuing a worthless check. On 2 October 1989, you received another written counseling concerning meeting your financial responsibility. Your combat history reflects that you served in Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm from 6 to 17 January 1991. On 17 February 1991, you were convicted by a summary court-martial for two instances of issuing worthless checks. On 18 August 1992, you received another written counseling concerning meeting your financial responsibility. On 27 October 1992, you submitted a request for discharge in lieu of a trial by court-martial based on charges that you stole an ATM card and withdrew money on two occasions. On 11 November 1992, the discharge authority approved your request for discharge, and on 20 November 1992, you were discharged with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service. The Board carefully considered all potentially mitigating factors in your petition to determine whether the interests of justice warrant relief in your case including in accordance with the Wilkie Memo. You contend in your petition that your request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial was not knowing and intelligent because you were originally offered a general characterization of service, which was reduced to an other than honorable characterization of service when the commanding officer of your unit changed mid-process, and your military defense lawyer told you that this was the best deal you were going to get and made the post-separation discharge upgrade request process seem easier and more automatic than it proved to be in reality. In addition, you also contend that your discharge was based on an isolated incident and your overall service record and post-service factors support an upgrade. In addition, the Board reviewed the letters of support and reference you provided, including to the extent they describe your post-service accomplishments. In review of all of your materials, the Board did not find an injustice in your record warranting relief. The Board determined that your separation documents demonstrate that you had a defense lawyer witness your request for discharge, and you did not provide any evidence to support your assertion that your request was not knowing and intelligent. Given your prior record of having two written warnings, a nonjudicial punishment, and a prior summary court-martial, all for financial-related offenses, it is not unreasonable to conclude that you would be facing another court-martial given your final alleged offenses. In addition, the Board determined that your misconduct was not an isolated incident, that you had been counseled concerning your financial responsibility, and, despite the counseling, you repeated your conduct, which resulted in nonjudicial punishment, a summary court-martial, and ultimately, your discharge under other than honorable conditions in order to escape a trial by court-martial. The Board reviewed your materials that describe your post-service accomplishments, and noted that you did not provide sufficient evidence of post-service accomplishments for the Board to make a finding of post-service clemency in accordance with the Wilkie Memo. In conclusion, given the totality of the circumstances, as well as a review of your overall service record, the Board determined that your request does not merit relief. 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 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, 6/22/2021 Executive Director