DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 JLB 
Docket No. 8197-1 5 DEC 2 0 2016 


This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 1552. You previously petitioned the Board and were advised in our Jetter of 11 March 1992, that your application had been denied. Your case was reconsidered in accordance with new Board for Correction of Naval Records procedures that conform to Lips man v. Secretary ofthe Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). 

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 three­member panel ofthe Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 August 2016. Your allegations oferror and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings ofthis Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 

In regard to your request for a personal appearance, be advised that the Board regulations state personal appearances before the Board are not granted as a right, but only when the Board determines that such an appearance will serve some useful purpose. In your case, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of the record. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. 

You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 29 November 1971. You served for less than a year without disciplinary incident, and on 19 June 1972 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for violating Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 86 (unauthorized absence). On 14 August 1973, you were again found guilty at NJP for violating UCMJ, Article 86. On 8 November 1973 you were declared a deserter and remained absent from your unit for a period of 119 days. On 16 April 1974 you were found guilty at Special Court Martial for your repeated violations ofUCMJ, Article 86. On 4 May 1974 you were again declared a deserter after remaining absent from your unit for a period of 439 days. On 5 August 1975 you went to Special Court-Martial and found guilty ofdesertion. You were awarded confinement for a period of three months and a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD). On 13 October 1976 you received Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) under "Conditions Other than Honorable" (OTH). On 7 March 1991, the Navy Discharge Review Board denied your request for characterization upgrade. On 11 March 1992, the Board for Correction of Naval Records denied your request for characterization upgrade. 

The Board, in its review ofyour entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your service during Vietnam, your struggle with alcohol and depression, and your desire to upgrade your discharge characterization. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case because of the seriousness of your misconduct. The Marine Corps Separation Manual, Section 1900.16, dictates that an Other than Honorable (OTH) characterization of service is warranted when conduct involving one or more acts of omissions constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of a Marine, specifically, conduct punishable by punitive discharges. Due to your misconduct, you were found guilty at Special Court-Martial and received a Bad Conduct Discharge. Finally, there is no provision of Jaw or in Marine Corps regulation that allows for recharacterization of service due solely to the passage oftime. Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request. 

It is regrettable that the circumstances of your case are such that the Board will not process any additional reviews and this matter is considered a final action. However, if you wish to continue to seek relief you will need to present your concerns to a court ofappropriate jurisdiction. 
Sincerely, 


Executive Director