DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 

Docket No: 2791-16/ 

Dear : 

This is in reference to your latest reconsideration request dated 1March2016. You previously 
petitioned the Board on 17 February 1981 to upgrade your discharge and were advised in our 
letter dated 7 August 1981 that your application had been disapproved. Your case was 
reconsidered in accordance with Board for Correction ofNaval Records procedures that conform 
to Lipsman v. Secretary of the Army, 335 F.Supp.2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). 

Your current request has been carefully examined by a three-member panel of the Board for 
Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session on 22 November 2016. The names and 
votes ofthe members of the panel will be furnished upon request. Documentary material 
considered by the Board consisted ofyour application and any material submitted in support of 
your application. 

Regarding your request for a personal appearance, Board regulations state that 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 
record. 

After careful and conscientious consideration ofthe entire record, the Board determined your 
new statement was insufficient to establish the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. 

In November 1977, you were convicted by a special court-martial (SPCM) for two separate 
periods ofunauthorized absence (UA) lasting 10 and 25 days, two instances ofwillful 
disobedience of a lawful order, and a failure to go to your appointed place ofduty. In July 1978, 
you submitted a written request for an other than honorable (OTH) characterization ofservice 
discharge in order to avoid a trial by SPCM for two separate periods ofUA lasting 152 days and 
26 days, respectively. Prior to submitting this request, you would have conferred with qualified 
military counsel and been advised ofyour rights and warned ofthe probable adverse 
consequences ofaccepting such a discharge. Your request was granted and you were discharged 
with an OTH characterization ofservice.  

The Board believed that considerable clemency was extended to you when your request for 
discharge to avoid trial by court-martial was approved because, by this action, you were spared 
the stigma ofa court-martial conviction and the potential penalties of confinement at hard labor 
and a punitive discharge. The Board concluded that you received the benefit ofyour bargain 
with the Marine Corps when your request for discharge was granted and you should not be 
permitted to change it now. Additionally, your repeated misconduct on active duty clearly 
warrants and justifies that your OTH discharge remain in place. Finally, there is no provision of 
federal law or in Navy/Marine Corps regulations that allows for a discharge upgrade or 
recharacterization ofservice due solely to the passage oftime. Accordingly, your application 
must again be denied. 

It is regretted that the 9ircumstances ofyour case are such that favorable action cannot 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 ofregularity attaches to all official records. 
Consequently, when applying for a correction ofan official naval record, the burden is on the 
applicant to demonstrate the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 


Executive Director