DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 1964-18 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 that 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 5 June 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 that a personal appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the Board determined that 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 30 April 1977. The record reflect during the period from 22 December 1977 to 21 September 1978, you received three non-judicial punishments (NJP) for violating articles under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). According to your DD Form 214, you submitted a request for an undesirable discharge (now called other than honorable (OTH)) for the good of the service (GOS) in lieu of action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. As part of your separation, you were medically evaluated and found to be fit for separation, and signed the evaluation. While the records concerning your separation are not complete, prior to submitting such a request, you would have conferred with a military lawyer at which time you would have been advised of your rights and warned of the probable adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge. Your request was granted and your commanding officer was directed to issue you an OTH discharge by reason of good of the service. On 28 November 1978, per your request, you were discharged with an OTH characterization of service. The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade your discharge. The Board considered your contentions that (1) you were not offered a hearing before an administrative board before 11 November 1978; (2) you were not correctly informed about your discharge; (3) your DD Form 214 is in error because your reason for discharge states “UNKN,” and upon discharge you never received your DD Form 214; (4) you could not have been informed of administrative discharge proceedings because you were still incarcerated for an alleged, accused crime of solicitation for prostitution for which you was released of all charges and record cleared; (5) you never received a specific reason for or type of discharge; (6) you were never informed of your rights to apply for an upgrade of your discharge; (7) you received serious medical injuries that were due to a military special mission in Cuba and Fort Bragg; and (8) you were harassed daily by your Platoon Sergeant, after you had received injuries from the special mission. The Board also considered your submission of supporting documentation on your behalf. However, the Board concluded these factors were insufficient to warrant relief in your case because of the seriousness of your misconduct that resulted in three NJPs, and your request for a GOS discharge. The Board believed that considerable clemency was extended to you when your request for a GOS discharge was approved since, as a result of this action, you were spared the stigma of a court-martial conviction and the potential penalties of a punitive discharge and confinement at hard labor. The Board further concluded that you received the benefit of your bargain with the Marine Corps when your request for discharge was granted. Regarding your contention that you were not offered a hearing before an administrative board, members, such as yourself, who make a GOS request for separation in lieu of trial by court-martial are not entitled to request a hearing before an administrative discharge board. In exchange for your being discharged and avoiding a trial by court-martial, the naval service is spared the time and expense of conducting an administrative separation board. The decision of whether to grant or deny the GOS request, and the characterization you receive are left to the separation authority pursuant to your GOS request. In regards to your DD Form 214 being in error due to your reason for discharge reflecting “UNKN,” the Board noted that your DD Form 214 reflects your reason for separation as good of the service, in lieu of court-martial. Regarding your contention that you were not informed of your administrative discharge, the Board noted that your DD Form 214 reflects that you refused to sign your DD Form 214, which indicates your reason for separation and type of discharge that you received. Accordingly, under the totality of the circumstances, the Board in its review discerned no probable material 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 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,