Docket No: 8596-20 
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  17 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, 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 reenlisted in the Marine Corps on 22 January 1980.  According to the information in your record, during the period from 28 July 1980 to 2 August 1982, you were in an unauthorized absence (UA) a total of 369 days.  Although the Board lacked your entire service record, the Board relied on a presumption of regularity and presumed that you were notified of the recommendation that you be discharged by reason of convenience of the government (COG).  Presumably, you waived your procedural rights, your commanding officer (CO) recommended your discharge with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service, the discharged authority approved the CO’s recommendation, and on 20 October 1982, you were so 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 and immature, and you were married to a recently discharged Marine that left the state with your son.  The Board also noted your contentions that you asked for permission to go get your son but were denied; and that you were a good Marine that graduated with honors from Boot Camp.   
 
Board noted that the evidence of record did not show that you were not responsible for your conduct or that you should not be held accountable for your actions.  The Board further noted that there is no evidence in your record, and you submitted none, to support your contention that you were denied permission to get your son.  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 369 days of 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 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, 
2/24/2021
Executive Director