DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 10366-18 Date: Ref Signature Dear 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 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 4 December 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, applicable statutes, and regulations and policies. The Board reviewed relevant portions of your naval record, which reflected that you enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active service on 17 September 1984. The Board also reviewed your legal matters during your 2 years and 9+ months of service. The Board noted that during your service the following legal matters were part of your official naval record: On 14 August 1986, you were given the opportunity to consult with a lawyer, at no cost to you [you chose not to be represented by a civilian/military lawyer], regarding the non­judicial punishment (NJP) [dated 19 August 1986] for derelict in performance of duties by willfully failing to check meal cards. You chose not to exercise right to refuse NJP and not to appeal the NJP. On 21 November 1986, you were given the opportunity to consult with a lawyer, at no cost to you [you chose not to be represented by a civilian/military lawyer], regarding the NJP [dated 24 November 1986] for disrespectful language to a Corporal. You chose not to exercise right to refuse NJP and not to appeal the NJP. On 22 January 1987, you were counseled for frequent involvement with authorities and were provided specific recommendations for corrective action. You chose not to make a statement. On 23 January 1987, you were given the opportunity to consult with a lawyer, at no cost to you [you chose not to be represented by a civilian/military lawyer], regarding the NJP [dated 26 January 1987] for driving dangerous and unnecessary manner by spinning your tires while exiting base. You chose not to exercise right to refuse NJP. On 26 January 1987, you appealed the NJP and your appeal was denied on 26 February 1987. On 29 May 1987, you were given the opportunity to consult with a lawyer, at no cost to you [you chose not to be represented by a civilian/military lawyer], regarding pending NJP/Summary Court Martial (SCM) for destruction of government property and failure to obey a lawful order. You were not taken to a SCM and received NJP on 29 May 1987. You chose not to exercise right to refuse NJP and not to appeal the NJP. On 15 July 1987, you were interviewed by a representative of your command about not being recommended for reenlistment, because of your misconduct-pattern of misconduct and being assigned a reenlistment code of RE-4 and informed of the actions of the RE-4 code. You acknowledged by signing the page 11 administrative remark. Your administrative separation documents were not available, however, your certificate of release or discharge from active duty (DD Form 214), stated “Admin discharge board required but waived” and your DD Form 214 was signed by both you and a Marine officer. On 15 July 1987, you were discharged with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service by reason of misconduct-pattern of misconduct. The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade your discharge and your contentions that the four charges brought against you were not investigated thoroughly; facts were ignored; discipline was excessive; one of the charge was legitimate; your appeals were verbally denied by your CO; one appeal was answered with a threat of jail time if wanted to follow through with the appeal, and your OTH characterization of service was not warranted. You also assert that you served honorably before and at , you were a good squared-away Marine with no discipline actions prior to , and you want to get involved with veteran organizations to help out but your discharge is a big issue for you. The Board also considered your statement/timeline of events, character letters, and commendatory materials received during your service. The Board noted that although your administrative separation documents were not available, the Board relied upon the presumption of regularity and presumed that the officials acted in accordance with governing law/policy and in good faith. The Board concluded that the severity of your repeated misconduct outweighed your desire to upgrade your discharge. The Board, in its review, discerned no error or injustice in your discharge. 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 the submission of new matters, which will require you to complete and submit a new DD Form 149. 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,