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

Docket No: 9396-17 
Ref: Signature date 


This 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 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 the merits.  A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 January 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, together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of your naval record, as well as applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 

Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined a personal appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the Board determined a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record.
 
You enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 26 January 1981.  It appears you served without disciplinary incident until January of 1983 when an administrative remarks entry states you were “eligible but not recommended for promotion to corporal because of drug use”.  On 17 February 1983, you were counseled after involvement in an alcohol-related incident.  On 18 March 1983, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) after consuming and possessing alcohol in your bachelors enlisted quarters, being drunk on duty, and consuming alcohol while acting as a chaser with a prisoner under your charge. On 24 January 1984, you received a second NJP for disobeying a lawful order, violating the company commander’s order to check out prior to liberty, and urinating on your and another Marine’s rack.  On 15 February 1984, you received written counseling due to “consistent involvement with military authority regarding alcohol abuse”.  On 24 September 1984, you submitted a written request for discharge for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial for two periods of unauthorized absence (UA), disobeying a commissioned officer and a staff noncommissioned officer, and being drunk and disorderly.  Prior to submitting this request, you were given an opportunity to confer with a qualified military lawyer, who cosigned your request, at which time you would have been advised of your rights and you acknowledged the 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 of this action, you were spared the stigma of a court-martial conviction, as well as the potential penalties of such a punitive discharge.  On 23 October 1984, you were discharged. 

The Board, in review of your application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, your desire to upgrade your discharge, and your contention you were told your discharge status would be automatically upgraded to general, under honorable conditions, after six months.  The Board discerned no impropriety or inequity in your discharge. Further, there is no provision of law or in Navy regulations that allows for recharacterization of service due solely to the passage of time.
 
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, 

5/15/2019