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

Docket No: 0833-20              
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 5 February 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, 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 and began a period of active duty on 30 January 1976.  On 17 August 1976, you began a period of unauthorized absence (UA) which lasted 57 days.  On 4 November 1976, you requested a discharge for the good of service with the intent to escape trial by court-martial, which was approved by your commanding officer the same day.  On 16 November 1976, the Staff Judge Advocate to the separation authority (SA) determined that your administrative separation proceedings were sufficient in law and fact.  The SA further approved your request, and directed your undesirable discharge for the good of service.  On 22 November 1976, you acknowledged a statement describing the narrative reason for your discharge, and informing you that you were not recommended for reenlistment.  On 24 November 1976, you were discharged with an other than honorable (OTH) 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 contentions that your discharge from service was not justified, and you were not given any options or help, nor were you given a lawyer or a trial.  Contrary to you contentions, the Board noted that you submitted a signed request for discharge, and acknowledged that you would receive an undesirable discharge under conditions other than honorable. 

In your request, you further acknowledged that you could lose any benefits which would have been given to you had you been honorably discharged; and you also acknowledged that the nature of an undesirable discharge would seriously hinder you later in life, both in civilian employment possibilities and in the social context.  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 lengthy UA, 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 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, 
2/17/2021 

Executive Director