DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

Docket No: 519-16 
DEC 22 2016 

Dear 

This is in reference to your application for correction ofyour late husband's Na val record 
pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the 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 of limitations and consider your application on its merits. A threemember 
panel ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 22 August 2016. 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 ofthis 
Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together 
with all material submitted in support thereof, your late husband's 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 husband enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period ofactive duty on 29 November 
1965. During the period from 28 December 1966 to 24 July 1968, he received nonjudicial 
punishment (NJP)for unauthorized absence (UA) for five days. He was convicted by special 
court martial (SPCM) ofbeing UA for an additional 155 days. On 31 July 1970, he submitted a 
written request for discharge for the good ofthe service (GOS) in lieu oftrial by court-martial. 
for being UA for a period totaling 242 days. Prior to submitting this request, he conferred with a 
qualified military lawyer at which time he was advised ofhis rights and warned ofthe probable 
adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge. His request was granted and his 
commanding officer was directed to issue an other than honorable discharge (OTH) by reason of 
the good ofthe service in lieu of trial by court-martial. As a result ofthis action, he was spared 
the stigma of a court-martial conviction and the potential penalties of a punitive discharge and 
confin,einent at hard labor. On 18 August 1970, he was so discharged. 

The Board, in its review ofyour husband's entire record and application, carefully weighed all 
potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade his discharge and assertion that he 
suffered all his life after serving in Vietnam. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these 
factors were not sufficient to warrant relief given his misconduct. 

In this regard, the Board concluded that the seriousness ofhis misconduct outweighed your 
desire to upgrade his discharge as evidenced by his NJP, SPCM, and separation from the Marine 
Corps. The Board gave liberal and special consideration to his record and was not able to 
substantiate the existence ofevidence to support your assertion. You provided no diagnostic 
evidence to support your claim that your husband suffered all his life after serving in Vietnam. 
Accordingly, your application has been denied. 

It is regretted that the circumstances 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