DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

Docket No: 8625-16 
NOV 15 2017 

Dear : 

This is in reference to your application for correction ofyour naval record pursuant to the 
provisions oftitle 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 oflimitations and consider your application on its merits. A threemember 
panel ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 25 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 of your naval record and 
applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 

You enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period ofactive duty on 22 May 1972. On 
3 May 1973, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for seven days of unauthorized absence 
(UA) and disobeying a lawful order. On 8 May 1973, you were counseled regarding your level of 
proficiency and unsatisfactory performance. On 22 May 1973, you received a counseling 
regarding your unsatisfactory performance and warned that further deficiencies could result in 
administrative discharge action. On 29 May and 21 July 1973, you were convicted by summary 
court-martial (SCM) of breaking restriction, failure to go to your appointed place ofduty, 
disobeying a lawful order and UA. On 22 August 1973, you were notified ofpending undesirable 
discharge due to unfitness. You elected to consult with legal counsel and requested an 
administrative discharge board (ADB). On 23 August 1973, you were convicted by SCM of 
reckless driving and two specifications of disobeying a lawful order. On 30 August 1973, your 
commanding officer (CO) forwarded your case to the commanding general recommending 
separation. Subsequently, on 7 September 1973, an ADB found that you had committed 
misconduct and recommended you receive and undesirable discharge due to your 
frequent involvement with military authorities. On 26 October 1973, the separation authority 
directed you be separated. On 18 January and 19 February 1974, you received NJP for four days 
ofUA and breaking restriction. On 12 December 1975, you submitted a written request for an 
other than honorable (OTH) discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for two periods of 
U A totaling 520 days. Prior to submitting this request for discharge, you conferred with a 
qualified military lawyer, were advised ofyour rights, and warned ofthe probable adverse 
consequences ofaccepting such a discharge. Subsequently, your request for discharge was 
granted and on 9 March 1976, you received an OTH 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 ofthe 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 of service, character letter from    , desire to 
upgrade your discharge, suffered a traumatic and rare aneurysm which led to you becoming 
disabled and unable to continue your career, and that you are unable to access medical benefits 
offered the Department ofVeterans Affairs. The Board concluded these factors were not 
sufficient to warrant recharacterization ofyour discharge given your misconduct that resulted in 
three NJP's and two SCM convictions. 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. 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. 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 ofan official naval record, the burden is on the 
applicant to demonstrate the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 


Executive Director