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

Docket No. 1925-17 
JUN 11 2017 

Dear

This is in reference to your application for correction ofyour naval record pursuant to the 
provisions of 10 U.S.C. 1552. You previously petitioned the Board and were advised in our 
letter dated 30 October 2007 that your application had been denied. Your case was reconsidered 
in accordance with procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Secretary ofthe Army, 335 F. Supp. 
2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). 

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 29 March 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 of this 
Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted ofyour application, together 
with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, 
regulations and policies. 

Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal 
appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to their understanding ofthe issue(s) 
involved. Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and 
considered your case based on the evidence ofrecord. 

It was noted that you enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 21 June 
1973. On 3 February 1975, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for violation ofthe 
Uniform Code ofMilitary Justice (UCMJ) Article 86, unauthorized absence (UA) for a period of 
8 days. On 3 July 1975, you were convicted at a summary court martial (SCM) for being UA for 
a period of22 days. Additionally, on 30 September 1975 you requested an other than honorable 
discharge in lieu of court martial for being 24 days UA. As a result of the foregoing, the 
separation authority directed an undesirable characterization ofservice. On 15 October 1975, 
you were discharged with an undesirable characterization of service. 

After careful and conscientious consideration ofthe entire rec,:ord, the Board found that the 
evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence ofprobable material error or 
injustice. The Board, in its review ofyour record and application with supporting 
documentation, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to 
upgrade your separation and your request to grant partial redemption for you and your family's 
honor. However, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in your 
case because ofyour repeated misconduct that resulted in an NJP, a summary court-martial and a 
discharge in lieu of court-martial. ·As a result ofyour request to be discharged in lieu ofcourt 
martial, you were spared the stigma of a court-martial conviction and the potential penalties ofa 
punitive discharge and further confinement. The Board believed that considerable clemency was 
extended to you when your request for discharge to avoid trial by court-martial was approved. 
Accordingly, the Board concurs with the previous Board's decision and your application was 
again denied. 

It is regretted that the circumstances ofyour reconsideration petition are such that favorable 
action cannot be taken again. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the 
submission ofnew and material evidence. New evidence is evidence not previously considered 
by the Board. In the absence ofsufficient new and material evidence for reconsideration, the 
decision of the Board is final, and your only recourse would be to seek relief, at no cost to the 
Board, from a court of appropriate jurisdiction. 

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