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

Docket No: 9121-17   
Ref: Signature date 

This letter is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552.  After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (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 three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 April 2019.  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, relevant portions of your naval record, as well as applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.
 
You enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 12 July 1995.  You were counseled on 13 December 1995, for deficiencies in conduct as evidenced by not shaving each morning and having a proper military haircut.  On 12 January 1996, you were counseled concerning lack of discipline by appearing unshaven.  On 17 January 1996, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for violating Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for not shaving.  You appealed the NJP; the appeal was denied.  Between 5 March 1997 and 19 February 1998, you were counseled three times for various infractions including insubordinate conduct, a period of unauthorized absence (UA), and making a false official statement.  On 30 March 1999, you were administratively reduced in rank to private first class due to incompetence.  You were counseled on 29 April 1998, regarding potential for separation due to frequent involvement with military authorities.  On 15 May 1998, you received NJP for failure to go to your appointed place of duty.  On 11 July 1999, you were discharged on the basis of a pattern of misconduct and received an other than honorable characterization of service. 

You request an upgrade to your other than honorable characterization of service for purposes of obtaining a Department of Veterans Affairs home loan.  You state that you received an other than honorable discharge at court martial; you contend that you were offered NJP but elected to take your chances at court-martial.   
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, including your desire to qualify for certain veterans’ benefits.  The Board noted that you stated you received an other than honorable discharge pursuant to a court-martial, but your record does not reflect court proceedings.  Your available record indicates that you received numerous counselings, two NJPs, and that your discharge was based on a pattern of misconduct.  Although your complete administrative separation package was not reflected in your available service record, the Board noted that a NAVMC 10213, Career Planners EAS Interview Misconduct dated 9 July 1999, states that your Commanding Officer indicated you were aware of the other than honorable discharge and the issuance of a reentry (RE) code of RE­4.  

The Board found that your two NJPs and numerous counselings establish a proper basis for your other than honorable characterization of service, and that you did not provide sufficient evidence to warrant a finding of material error or injustice.  Accordingly, the Board concluded that an upgrade is not warranted. 

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken.  You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new matters. New matters are those not previously presented to or 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, 
7/8/2019