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

Docket No:  562-16/  
JAN 23 2017  

Dear 

This is in reference to your latest reconsideration request dated 16 December 20 l 5. You previously petitioned the Board and were advised in our letter dated 23 July 2014 that your app!jcation had been disapproved. Your case was reconsidered in accordance with Board of Correction of Naval Records procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Secretary ofthe Army, 33 
F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). 

Because your application was submitted with new evidence not previously considered, the Board found it in the interests of justice to review your application. Your current request has been carefully examined by a three-member panel ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session on 18 October 2016. The names and votes of the members ofthe panel will be furnished upon request. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted ofyour application and any material submitted in support ofyour application. 

After careful and conscientious consideration ofthe entire record, the Board determined that the documentation that you provided, even though not previously considered by the Board, was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. A review of your recent application and its attachments reveal that again your request must be denied. In this regard, the Board found that your contention that you were young and made a mistake was not enough to outweigh your serious misconduct. 

Your record shows that on 16 February 1971, you received nonjudicial punishment for 18 days ofunauthorized absence (UA). On 11 August 1971, you submitted a written request for discharge for the good ofthe service to avoid trial by court-martial for 99 days ofUA and possession of marijuana. Prior to submitting this request, you conferred with a qualified military lawyer at which time you were advised ofyour rights and warned of the probable adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge. Your request was granted and your Commanding Officer was directed to issue an other than honorable (OTH) discharge by reason of the good of the service. As a result of this action, you were spared the stigma ofa court-martial conviction and the potential penalties of a punitive discharge and confinement at hard labor. The Board concluded that you have already received considerable clemency and the benefit of your bargain with the Marine Corps when your request for discharge was granted, and that you should not be allowed to change it now. 
It is regretted 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 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 of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 

Executive Director