DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 10609-18 7834-15 Ref: Signature date This letter is in reference to your reconsideration request of 3 October 2018. You previously petitioned the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) and were advised that your application had been approved. Your case was reconsidered in accordance with Board procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Sec’y of the Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Consequently, your application has been denied. A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 August 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. You fraudulently enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 4 August 1975. On 27 July 1976, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for unauthorized absence (UA). You were awarded forfeiture of pay and restriction, the restriction was suspended for four months. On 3 December 1976, you were counseled that you were not recommended for promotion. On 19 January 1977, you were counseled regarding indebtedness. On 22 May 1977, you received a second NJP for failure to obey a lawful order and you were awarded forfeiture of pay. On 13 June 1977, you were counseled concerning your responsibilities as an individual and as a Marine, your lack of proper tact when speaking with superiors, and your poor attitude. On 5 July 1977, you received a third NJP for threatening your sergeant and another Marine. You were awarded reduction in rank and correctional custody (CC). The CC portion of your punishment was suspended for three months. On 7 August 1977, you began a period of UA that continued until you were apprehended on 7 November 1977. On 28 December 1997, you went UA again until you surrendered to your command on 2 January 1978. On 3 January 1978, administrative discharge action was initiated. After being afforded all of your procedural rights, you waived them, however, you asserted that your recruiter suggested your brother take your service entry exam, and your brother did so with the recruiter’s assistance. During the separation process, an investigation into recruiter misconduct was initiated and substantiated. On 12 January 1978, you received a fourth NJP for UA. You were awarded forfeitures of pay, restriction, and extra duties. On 14 February 1978, the Staff Judge Advocate recommended your enlistment be voided. The discharge authority directed a void enlistment due to fraudulent enlistment obtained with recruiter complicity. On 16 February 1978, you received a void enlistment by reason of lack of jurisdiction. Your prior case before the Board (7834-15) resulted in changes to your DD Form 214. Block 24 was changed from “Void Enlistment” to “General (Under Honorable Conditions)” and block 28 was changed from “Lack of Jurisdiction” to “Secretarial Authority.” In your current petition, you requested the Board upgrade your discharge to honorable. You asserted your performance “met all standards” and that you had no NJP for any orders violations. You claimed your records clearly put the blame on your recruiter who suggested and allowed your brother to take your entry exam. You stated that as an “18 year old kid,” you did not know that falsifying your test results by having your brother take your service entry exam “was not an accepted practice at the time” and that you feel that you were punished for an alleged offense that you did not intend to commit. The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors in your case, including your record of service and your contentions, and concluded that these factors were insufficient to warrant a change to your discharge given your misconduct. With respect to your contention that you had no NJPs, the Board noted that you actually had four NJPs, to include orders violations, a lengthy UA, and threats to two of your fellow Marines. Additionally, the Board noted that the fraudulent enlistment investigation did not exonerate you, but rather found that your recruiter was complicit in your fraudulent enlistment. Lastly, the Board noted that your characterization of service is warranted by your service record. It is regretted that the circumstances of your reconsideration petition are such that favorable action cannot be taken again. 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 the absence of new matters for reconsideration, the decision of the Board is final, and your only recourse would be to seek relief, at no cost to the Board, from a court of appropriate jurisdiction. 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, 10/3/2019