Docket No: 925-20
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 for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 November 2020.  The names and votes of the members of the panel 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. 
 
You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 3 April 1973.  On 1 June 1974, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for unauthorized absence totaling two days.  On 13 March 1975, a special court-martial (SPCM) convicted you of UA totaling 50 days.  On 12 March 1976, you submitted a written request for discharge for the good of the service (GOS) to avoid trial by court-martial for two specifications of UA totaling 117 days.  Prior to submitting this request, you conferred with a qualified military lawyer, at which time you were advised of your rights and warned of the probable adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge.  Your request was granted and your commanding officer (CO) was directed to issue an other than honorable (OTH) discharge for the good of the service.  As a result of this action, you were spared the stigma of a court-martial conviction, as well as the potential penalties of such a punitive discharge.  On 26 March 1976, you were discharged. 
 
The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as the character letters you submitted to the Board, your desire to upgrade your discharge, and your contentions that: (a) you went UA because your wife left and returned home with your daughter while suffering from alcoholism giving your daughter to your parents; (b) you were not allowed to explain why you went UA; (c) you went UA due to excruciating circumstances; (d) you did not realize you were receiving an OTH discharge; and (e) you need Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA) benefits.  However, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case given your UA and request for a GOS discharge in lieu of a trial by court-martial.   
 
Regarding your contentions that you went UA because your wife left and returned home with your daughter while suffering from alcoholism giving your daughter to your parents and you went UA due to excruciating circumstances, the Board noted that there is no evidence in your record, and you submitted none, to support this contention.  Regarding your contentions that you were not allowed to explain why you went UA and you did not realize you were receiving an OTH discharge, the Board noted that the record contains documented evidence which is contrary to your contentions.  The record clearly shows that on 12 March 1976, you submitted a written request for discharge for the good of the service (GOS) to avoid trial by court-martial.  Prior to submitting this request, you conferred with a qualified military lawyer, at which time you were advised of your rights and warned of the probable adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge.  Regarding your contention that you need DVA benefits, whether or not you are eligible for benefits is a matter under the cognizance of the DVA, and you should contact the nearest office of the DVA concerning your right to apply for benefits.  If you have been denied benefits, you should appeal that denial under procedures established by the DVA.  
 
In reviewing the circumstances of your separation and characterization of service, the Board considered the totality of the circumstances to determine whether relief is appropriate today in the interests of justice in accordance with guidance provided by the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (Wilkie Memo of 25 July 2018).  Accordingly, the Board considered and acknowledged your positive contributions to the Marine Corps, the length of your active duty service to our nation, and your post-discharge achievements.  Even considering these potentially mitigating factors in accordance with the above referenced guidance, the Board did not find that relief was in the interest of justice.  The Board concluded that your OTH discharge characterization was issued without error or injustice, and that corrective action is not warranted. 
     
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken.  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,