DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

Docket No: 8362-16 
NOV 07 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 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 September 2017. The names and votes ofthe members ofthe 
panel will be furnished upon request. Your allegations oferror and injustice were reviewed in 
accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings ofthis 
Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted ofyour application, together 
with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions ofyour naval record and 
applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 

You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 19 January 1973. During the 
period from 28 November 1973 to 26 March 1974, you received two nonjudicial punishments 
(NJPs) for possession ofmarijuana, wrongful appropriation ofthree syringes and a compress 
bandage, unauthorized absence (UA) and failure to obey a lawful order. You were also convicted 
by summary court-martial (SCM) of23 days ofUA. On 26 March 1974, you were counseled 
regarding your deficiencies in military behavior and warned that further misconduct could result 
in administrative discharge action. On 5 October 1974, you began a period ofUA that lasted 188 
days, ending on 11 April 1975. On 6 May 1975, you submitted a written request for an 
undesirable discharge for the good of the service in order to avoid trial by court-martial. Prior to 
submitting this request for discharge, you conferred with a qualified military lawyer, were 
advised of your rights, and warned ofthe probable adverse consequences ofaccepting such a 
discharge. Subsequently, your request for discharge was granted and on 30 May 1975, you 
received an other than honorable discharge in lieu oftrial by court-martial. As a result ofthis 
action, you were spared the stigma ofa court-martial conviction and the potential penalties ofa 
punitive discharge and confinement at hard labor. 

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, such as your record ofservice, personal problems concerning your family 
while you were home on leave, and contentions that you were offered a choice ofan OTH 
discharge or six months in the brig and you took the OTH discharge because you thought 
spending six months in the brig was to severe ofa punishment. The Board concluded these 
factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization ofyour discharge given the seriousness 
ofyour misconduct which resulted in your two NJP's, SCM conviction, the fact that you were 
counseled and warned regarding the consequences of further misconduct, charges being 
preferred to a court-martial for a lengthy period ofUA, and your request for discharge. The 
Board believed that considerable clemency was extended to you when your request for discharge 
was approved. The Board also concluded that you received the benefit ofyour bargain with the 
Marine Corps when your request for discharge was granted and should not be permitted to 
change it now. Concerning your contentions, there is no evidence in the record to support them, 
and you submitted no such evidence. Accordingly, your application has been denied. 

It is regretted that the circumstances ofyour case are such that favorable action caunot be taken. 
You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission ofnew and material 
evidence. New 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