DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

Docket No: 0296-18 
Ref: Signature date 

Dear :

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 
18 March 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 reenlisted in the Marine Corps and began a third period of active duty on 27 July 1957. 
From the period beginning on 14 October 1957 to 13 December 1957, you received five letters 
of indebtedness. On 16 December 1957, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for 
wrongfully and dishonorably failing to pay a debt. Your records note that on 30 January 1958, 
an investigation was initiated as a result of your receiving a letter of indebtedness, and revealed 
that you had a felony civil conviction for forging and uttering a United States treasury check 
during your prior reenlistment in the Marine Corps, creating a presumption that your current 
reenlistment was fraudulent. You were placed on active probation on 1 February 1958. On 
18 February 1958, you received your sixth letter of indebtedness. On 28 February 1958, the 
investigating officer forwarded a recommendation of administrative discharge by reason of 
misconduct with no disciplinary action taken. Your commanding officer concurred with the 
recommendation on 3 March 1958. On 31 March 1958, the discharge authority directed an other 
than honorable (OTH) discharge, and on 4 April 1958, you were discharged. 

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, including your desire to upgrade 
your discharge, and reviewed the evidence you submitted regarding, among other things, your 
post-service accomplishments. You state, that you were advised your record would be expunged 
after 18 months. You state, you did not have legal representation or advice regarding your civil 
conviction. Additionally, you state that your having carried the burden of a felony conviction 
and OTH discharge for 60 years is sufficient reason for upgrade. You also stated that you only 
recently learned that it was your responsibility to petition the civil court to expunge your felony 
conviction and that the court has been unable to locate your record. The Board noted that you 
failed to provide evidence that you did not receive legal advice or representation. Absent such 
evidence, the Board relied upon the presumption of regularity that attaches to all official records, 
and presumed that the officials in your case acted in accordance with governing law, policy, and 
in good faith. The Board noted that members of the armed services are subject to conviction by 
civil authorities and, if such action is taken, may be discharged from service. Moreover, the 
mere passage of time alone does not constitute a basis for upgrading a characterization of 
service. Based on the totality of the circumstances, the Board in its review discerned no probable 
material error or injustice in your discharge and concluded that the discharge was properly 
issued. 

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken 
at this time. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the submission of 
new and material evidence. New evidence is evidence not previously 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, 

6/4/2019