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

Docket No: 2343-17 
JUN 2 O 2018 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your father's 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 ofprobable 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 of the Board for Correction of Naval 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 ofyour naval record and 
applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 

Your father enlisted in the Marine Corps on 17 June 1974. According to the information 
contained in his record, he was in an unauthorized absence (UA) status on two separate 
occasions totaling 1927 days. On 18 September 1976, he was convicted by civil authorities of 
child desertion. As a result of the forgoing, he was sentence to one year in the     
Department of Corrections. Upon completion ofhis sentence, on 14 September 1980, his 
Commanding Officer (CO) recommended he receive an other than honorable (OTH) discharge. 
On 26 September 1980, the discharge authority disapproved the CO's recommendation. On 
1 March 1983, he submitted a written request for discharge for the good ofthe service to avoid 
trial by court-martial for 872 days of UA. Prior to submitting this request, he conferred with a 
qualified military lawyer, at which time he was advised ofhis rights and warned of the probable 
adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge. His request was granted and his CO was 
directed to issue him an other than honorable (OTH) discharge for the good ofthe service. As a 
result ofthis action, he was spared the stigma of a court-martial conviction, as well as the 
potential penalties of such a punitive discharge. On 23 May 1983, he was discharged. 

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as the certificate of death for 
your father, your desire to upgrade your father's discharge and your contention that you are 
trying to get military pension for your mother. However, the Board found that these factors were 
not sufficient to warrant relief in your father's case given his misconduct, request for a good of 
the service discharge in lieu ofa trial by court-martial, and lengthy periods of UA. 

In regard to your contention that you are trying to get a military pension for your mother, 
unfortunately the Board noted that your mother is not entitled to a military pension due to the 
characterization ofservice and the required length ofservice required to receive a military 
pension. The Board believed that considerable clemency was extended to your father when his 
request for discharge to avoid trial by court-martial was approved and discerned no impropriety 
or inequity in your discharge. 

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are 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 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 of probable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 


Executive Director