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

Docket No: 1814-17 
JUN 2 0 2018 

This is in reference to your application for correction ofyour naval record pursuant to the 
provisions ofTitle 10 ofthe United States Code, Section 1552. After careful and conscientious 
consideration ofthe entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to 
establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Consequently, your application 
has been denied. 

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 29 May 2018. The names and votes of the 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 ofthis 
Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your 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 on 3 May 1989. On 17 April 1991, you submitted a written 
request for discharge for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial for being in an 
unauthorized absence (UA) status for four days, three specifications of disobeying a lawful 
order, and incapacitated for the performance ofduties. Prior to submitting this request, you 
conferred with a qualified military lawyer, at which time you were advised ofyour rights and 
warned ofthe probable adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge. Your request was 
granted and your Commanding Officer (CO) was directed to issue an other than honorable 
(OTH) discharge for the good of the service. As a result, you were spared the stigma of a courtmartial 
conviction, as well as the potential penalties of such a punitive discharge. On 2 May 
1991, you were discharged. 

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade 
your discharge and contentions that your discharge was unjust because you were not given 
adequate counseling or treatment for your drinking problem, you need Department of Veterans 
Affairs (DVA) benefits, and you have turned your life around since being discharged. However, 
the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case given your 
misconduct and request to be discharged. 

In regard to the contention that your discharge was unjust because you were not given adequate 
counseling or treatment for your drinking problem, the Board noted that the record contains 
documented evidence which is contrary to your contention that you were not given adequate 
counseling or treatment for your drinking problem. The record clearly shows that on 24 April 
1991, you were counseled and accepted treatment from the DVA by entering the alcohol 
rehabilitation treatment program. 

In regard to your contention that you need DVA benefits, whether or not you are eligible for 
benefits is a matter under the cognizance ofthe DVA, and you should contact the nearest office 
ofthe DVA concerning your right to apply for benefits. Ifyou have been denied benefits, you 
should appeal that denial under procedures established by the DVA. 

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case arc such that favorable action cannot be taken 
at this time. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the submission of 
new 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 ofregularity 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