DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 
Docket No: 2261-16 
JAN 06 2017 

Dear

This is in reference to your application for correction ofyour naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 1552. 

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 September 2016. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request. Your allegations oferror 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, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 

After careful and conscientious consideration ofthe entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. 

The Petitioner entered the Marine Corps on 28 July 1999. On 14 August 2001 the Petitioner went unauthorized absence (UA). On 3 March 2002 the Petitioner was in the hand ofcivilian authorities (IHCA) and was turned over to the Marine Corps and subsequently was returned from UA. On 3 April 2002, the Petitioner was found guilty at a Summary Court-Martial for violation of article 86; UA (AWOL). The Petitioner was awarded a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD), confinement 60 days, and reduced to the rank ofE-l. On 29 September 2003, the Navy and Marine Corps Appellate Leave Activity (NMCALA) reviewed the Petitioners case and he was discharge on the same day. The Navy Discharge Review Board (NDRB) reviewed the Petitioner's case and noted discharge is proper as issued. 

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially 
mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade your BCD and your assertions that you were a 
poster boy Marine and your outstanding service overseas. The Board also considered the letters 
submitted on your behalf. The Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant 
relief in your case given the prolong length of UA and the overall seriousness of the misconduct. 

In this regard, the Board concluded the severity of your misconduct outweighed your desire to upgrade your discharge. Accordingly, your application has been denied. 

It is regretted that the circumstances ofyour case are such that favorable action cam1ot be taken. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and material evidence within one year from the date ofthe Board 's decision. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in your case. 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, 

Executive Director