Docket No: 8652-20 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 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 12 April 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). 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 Marne Corps and began a period of active duty on 14 July 1981. From 29 June 1983 to 2 December 1983, you received three (3) non-judicial punishments (NJP) for misconduct, specifically, being in an unauthorized absence (UA) status, disobeying an order from a non-commissioned officer (NCO), and being disrespectful in language towards an NCO. On 11 December 1983, you were seen at the Naval Hospital aboard () for a fractured left clavicle that occurred while conducting physical training, According to your medical records, you were prescribed medications for pain, which were refilled on 20 December 1983 at the . At 0631, on 20 December 1983, you absented yourself from your appointed place of duty until 0815, on 20 December 1983. Subsequently, you received your fourth NJP for being UA. Further, you received a counseling entry advising you that failure to take corrective action would result in administrative separation or judicial proceedings. On 26 December 1983, you absented yourself from your unit until you were returned to military control on 7 January 1984. Your medical records document that you claim while you were in a UA status, you gestured suicide and were hospitalized at the before being medically evacuated back to . Upon your return, on 16 January 1984, you once again absented yourself from your unit until you surrendered to your command on 24 January 1984. On 25 January 1984, the commanding officer requested you undergo a psychiatric evaluation. The attending psychologist determined that although you had a significant personality disorder, you were responsible for your behavior. Furthermore, it was recommended that you be processed for administrative separation by reason of unsuitability after all administrative, legal, and disciplinary action is completed. On 13 February 1984, you were convicted at a Summary Court-Martial for two (2) specifications of UA. You were sentenced to confinement with hard labor for thirty (30) days and forfeitures of $394.00 pay per month for one (1) month. Subsequently, on 15 February 1984, you were notified of pending administrative separation by reason of misconduct, specifically a pattern of misconduct, at which time, you waived your procedural rights. Further, you were notified of the Commanding Officer’s intent to recommend to the discharge authority that you be discharged with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service. On 1 March 1984, you were found qualified for separation. On 7 March 1984, the discharge authority directed discharge with an OTH characterization of service by reason of misconduct, specifically a pattern of misconduct. On 8 March 1984, you were discharged with an OTH characterization of service. The Board carefully reviewed your application, weighed all potentially mitigating factors, and considered your contentions that you were a “stellar” Marine, you received numerous awards for recognition of your performance, and you served honorably up until the time of your injury. The Board noted that you claim to not have taken pain medications for your injury; however, your medical documents state that you were prescribed medications. The Board further noted your statement that only after your command denied your request to take time off did you decide do so without authority. Unfortunately, the Board did not find evidence of an error or injustice that warrants upgrading your characterization of service. The Board concluded there was insufficient evidence of an error or injustice that warrants granting clemency in the form of an upgraded 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 desire to upgrade your characterization of service based on your contentions above, and doing so would allow you to receive VA benefits for your service-connected injury. Although the Board took into consideration your in-service awards for performance, the Board noted you did not did not submit advocacy letters or post-service documents to be considered for clemency purposes. Additionally, the Board considered your contention that you served honorably up until your injury, but noted your previous misconduct, specifically, being in a UA status on multiple occasions. Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief. Specifically, the Board determined that your multiple incidences of misconduct 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,