DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

Docket No: 719-16 

JAN 03 2017 

Dear

This is in reference to your application for correction of your 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 of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 27 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 of your application, together 
with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, 
regulations, and polides. 

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. 

You enlisted in the Marine Corps and begin a period ofactive duty on 25 September 1972. 
During the period from 23 January to P May 1973, you received two nonjudicial punishments 
(NJP), for being absent from appointed place of duty, unauthorized absence (UA) for five days, 
and disobeying a lawful order. Subsequently, you were notified ofpending administrative 
separation by reason ofunsuitability. However, the discharge authority disapproved the 
commander's recommendation and retained you in the Marine Corps. On 29January1974, you 
were convicted by summary court martial (SCM) ofUA for two days, being absent you're your 
appointed place ofduty, and disobeying a lawful order. During the period from 15 May to 5 
December 1974, you received three NJPs for disobeying a lawful order, disobeying a lawful 
regulation, and being UA for a period totaling 44 days. 

Subsequently, you were notified ofpending administrative separation action by reason of 
misconduct due to frequent involvement with military authorities. After you waived your 
procedural rights, your commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable 
conditions by reason ofmisconduct due to frequent involvement with military authorities. The 
discharge authority approved this recorrimendation and directed separation under other than 
honorable conditions by reason ofmisconduct. On 11December1974, you were so discharged. 

The Board, in its review ofyour entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially 
mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade your discharge and assertion that you were 
offered a general discharge for having a weapon in your wall-locker but took an undesirable 
discharge instead. The Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief 
given your misconduct. In this regard, the Board concluded that the seriousness ofyour 
repetitive misconduct, which resulted in five NJPs and a SCM, outweighed your desire to 
upgrade your discharge and clearly supports the commanding officer's decision to issue you an 
undesirable discharge. The Board was also not persuaded by your assertion that you were 
offered a general discharge for having a weapon in your wall-locker but took an undesirable 
discharge instead. As stated previously, you waived your rights to consult counsel, submit a 
statement, or to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB), which was 
your chance for retention, and opportunity to advocate for a better discharge. In the end, the 
Board concluded that your misconduct was too serious to warrant upgrading your discharge. 
Unfortunately, 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 of probable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 



Executive Director