DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204·2490 

Docket No:520-16 

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, 
reconsidered your application on 28 September 2016. The names and votes ofthe 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 of 
this 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, and your prior case file. 

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. 

Further, 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 ofrecord. 

You enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period ofactive duty on 10 March 1982. You served 
without disciplinary incident until you were discovered having had an improper sexual relationship 
with a fourteen (14) year old girl that resulted in a pregnancy. Such egregious sexual misconduct is 
a felony in the state of , and a violation ofthe Uniform Code ofMilitary Justice Article 120 
(Carnal Knowledge). 

Subsequently, you were notified ofpending administrative discharge processing with an other 
than honorable (OTH) discharge for misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. 
After consulting with legal counsel, you elected to present your case to an administrative 
discharge board (ADB). On 31 October 1983, the ADB found that you committed misconduct 
and recommended that you be separated with an OTH discharge. Your Commanding Officer 
concurred with the ADB and forwarded his recommendation to the separation authority. The 
separation authority agreed with the recommendation ofthe ADB and directed your 
Commanding Officer to issue you an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct due to commission 
ofa serious offense, and on 6 January 1984, you were so discharged. 

The Board, in its review ofyour entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially 
mitigating factors, such as your contention that your discharge should not be based on one 
isolated incident. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant 
relief in your case because ofthe seriousness of your sexual misconduct. Regarding your 
contention, the Board concluded that despite a service member's prior record of service, sex 
offenses and certain serious service discrediting offenses, even though seemingly isolated, 
warrant immediate separation from the Marine Corps in order to maintain good order and 
discipline. Finally, the Board determined that your desire to upgrade your discharge was not 
enough to outweigh the serious misconduct you committed. 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 ofnew 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 of an official naval record, the burden is on the 
applicant to demonstrate the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. 
 

Sincerely,