DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 
 
Docket No: 5427-16 

Dear 

This is in reference to your application for correction ofyour naval 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 3 May 2017. 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 of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 

Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to their understanding of the issue(s) involved. Therefore, 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 of active duty on 19 June 1987. You served for five months without disciplinary incident, but during the period from 20 November 1987 to 18 June 1992, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on five occasions. Your offenses were failure to obey a lawful regulation and insubordinate conduct toward a noncommissioned officer. Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative separation by reason of misconduct due to a pattern ofmisconduct. After consulting with legal counsel, you elected to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB). On 18 February 1993, an ADB recommended discharge under OTH conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. The separation authority approved and directed an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. You were discharged on 24 March 1993. 

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. The Board, in its review ofyour entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, and your contentions that the Marine Corps did not take into consideration that you were a combat veteran, that the war was weighing heavily on you mental state, and you should have been seen by someone in mental health. The Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case because of your repeated misconduct that resulted in five NJPs. In regard to your contentions, the Board relies on a presumption of regularity to support the official actions ofpublic officers and, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, will presume that they have properly discharged their official duties. During your ADB your counsel would have presented documentary and/or real mitigating evidence in your support to include your combat history, awards received such as your Good Conduct Medal. Further, the Board noted that there is no evidence in your record and you submitted none, to support your contention ofany mental problems. Your allegations, unsupported in the record failed to overcome that presumption ofregularity. Accordingly, you application has been denied. 

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken at this time. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the submission ofnew and material evidence. }'!Jew evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board. 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 ofprobable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 

Executive Director