Docket No: 0868-20 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 16 November 2020. 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). Your records reflect that you enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 26 April 1989. On 8 March 1990, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for wrongfully drinking alcoholic beverages while under the age of 21 on 28 February 1990 in violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). You were counseled on 4 May 1990 for and underage drinking and disorderly conduct incident in February 1990, and warned that failure to take corrective action may result in administrative separation or judicial proceedings. On 6 June 1990, you received a second NJP for violating a lawful order by entering a restricted enlisted club, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ, and for disorderly conduct, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. On 20 June 1990, you were relieved for cause from consideration or assignment to a reliability billet. On 22 August 1990, you received a third NJP for disobeying a direct order from a superior noncommissioned officer and disrespecting another noncommissioned officer, in violation of Article 91, UCMJ, and for drunk and disorderly conduct in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. On 21 October 1990, you positively distinguished yourself by receiving a Meritorious Mast. From 2 August 1990 to 18 April 1991, you were deployed in support of Operation Desert Shield/Storm. On 30 June 1991, you received a fourth NJP for violating orders by failing to get out of bed for reveille and to report for morning clean-up duty, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ; and for using provoking speech toward your team leader, in violation of Article 117, UCMJ. Between 9 October 1991 and 19 February 1992, you participated in Operation Desert Storm onboard the in the Persian Gulf. Finally, on 30 July 1992, you received a fifth NJP for disobeying a written company order, in violation of Article 91, UCMJ, and for disobeying a noncommissioned officer, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. By memorandum dated 25 August 1992, you were notified that administrative separation proceedings were being initiated against you based upon your five previous NJPs. You subsequently waived your right to appear before an administrative separation board. On 25 September 1992, you were discharged under other than honorable (OTH) conditions due to “minor disciplinary infractions.” upon a pattern of misconduct. In 1999, however, the Naval Discharge Review Board noted an administrative error in your record, and directed that the reason for your discharge be changed to “pattern of misconduct.” In your application, you ask that your OTH discharge characterization be upgraded to honorable and that the narrative reason for your separation be changed to “Secretarial Authority.” You assert your chain of command made an error in discharging you with an OTH characterization of service because your records reflect that the overall quality of your service was honorable and because alcohol abuse was the root cause of your misconduct. You noted the stigma that attaches from an OTH characterization of service, and the harm that it continues to cause today. You expressed remorse for your misconduct that resulted in your characterization of service, and noted the strides that you have made since your discharge from the Marine Corps. Finally, you provided the Board with several letters testifying to your positive character and performance of duty as a Marine. 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 positive contributions in the Marine Corps, including your combat deployments and receipt of a Meritorious Mast; your combat promotion to the rank of Lance Corporal; your overall proficiency and conduct marks while in the Marine Corps; your post-discharge accomplishments, to include receiving a bachelor’s degree from the Pennsylvania State University and your volunteer activities with the ; your post-service contributions to U.S. Armed Forces, as evidenced by a 19 August 1997 Certificate of Achievement for your service as a student intern performing duties as a Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Coordinator in ; the severe collateral consequences of an OTH discharge; your remorse for the misconduct which resulted in your discharge; the testimony of your former peers and leaders regarding your character as a Marine; and the passage of time since your discharge. Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief. Specifically, the Board determined that your repeated misconduct, as evidenced by your five NJPs, 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, 1/13/2021 Executive Director