DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 00332-16 JAN 03 2017 Dear This is in reference to your application for correction ofyour naval record pursuant to the provisions oftitle 10 ofthe United States Code, section 1552. Although your application was not filed in a timely manner, the Board found it in the interest of justice to waive the statute oflimitations and consider your application on its merits. A threemember panel ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 September 2016. The names and votes ofthe members ofthe 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 ofthis Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted ofyour 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 ofprobable material error or injustice. You began a period ofactive duty in the Marine Corps on 19 May 1972. On 18 November 1972, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for unauthorized absence (UA). Between 15 February 1973 and 25 March 1974, you received six NJPs for various infractions including UA, breaking restriction, disobeying a lawful order, disorderly conduct, and deserting your post. On 26 December 1973, at special court martial (SPCM) proceedings, you were convicted violating the Uniform Code ofMilitary Justice, Article 86, UA for a 53 days from 13 August 1973 to 5 October 1973. In January 1974, you were counseled on seeking a hardship discharge to care for your mother and two younger sisters; your request was not approved. On 31 March 1974, you went UA for 142 days, until your return on 20 August 1974. On 10 October 1974, rather than face court martial proceedings for your 142 day absence, you requested an Other Than Honorable (OTH) administrative discharge in lieu oftrial. In your request, you note that you were the only son in your family, your father was deceased, your mother was unable to work, and your two school age sisters needed your care and assistance. Your request for discharge was approved and on 5 November 1974, you were discharged from the Marine Corps with an OTH characterization of service. The Board considered your personal statement submitted in conjunction with your request for relief, your family situation, and your attempt to obtain a hardship discharge prior to your final period ofUA. The Board noted your proficiency and conduct marks (3.1/2.7), and your background and military performance reflected in your service record. When making its determination, the Board noted that the length of time and frequency of your UAs support your assertion that you absented yourself from the to care for and support your mother and two younger sisters. The Board, in its review ofyour entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade your discharge, the length oftime since your military service, and your reasons for going UA. The Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization ofyour discharge given the seriousness ofyour misconduct as reflected by the length oftime and frequency ofthe UAs. The Board noted that you had seven NJPs and one speCial court martial conviction, in addition to your final 142 day period ofabsences. The Board determined that the number ofincidents and the length ofyour absence were too significant to warrant an upgrade to your service characterization. In consideration ofyour military record, your application for correction and your personal statement, the Board determined that your OTH characterization ofservice was warranted, and that your military record does not reflect an error or injustice. Accordingly, your application has been denied. It is regrettable 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 ofnew anct matedal 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 of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. Sincerely, Executive Director