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

Docket No: 7794-17 
FEB 25 2019 

Dear

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552. After careful and conscientious consideration of the 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 oflimitations 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 15 October 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 of this 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 and began a period of active duty on 24 January 1975. On 18 November 1975, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for three occasions of unauthorized absence (UA) totaling 3 days. On 19 December 1975, you received NJP for three additional occasions of UA. During the period from 4 February to 28 February 1976, you were UA on three occasions totaling 12 days. On 1 March 1976, you began a period of UA that terminated with your apprehension on 14 April 1976, a total of 44 days. On 22 April 1976, you submitted a request for separation in lieu of trial (SILT), citing you could not adapt to military life after getting married and the Marine Corps would be better off without you. On 28 April 1976, your commanding officer did not recommend approval of your SILT request and recommended trial for your repeated periods of UA. The discharge authority disapproved your SILT and on 25 May 1976, you were convicted at special court-martial (SPCM) for four specifications of UA You were sentenced to confinement, reduction in rank, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD). You waived restoration of duty and requested immediate execution of the BCD. On 14 July 1976, you began appellate leave and after your discharge was reviewed at all levels, you were discharged on 25 July 1977. 

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade your discharge, contention that Vietnam veterans were not very liked at the time, and times have changed for Vietnam era veterans. The Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant an upgrading to your discharge based on your repeated periods of UA, which resulted in two NJPs, SPCM, and subsequent BCD. The Board in its review 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 of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 

Executive Director