Docket No: 3443-18 
Ref: Signature date 

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 
19 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, relevant portions of your naval record, as well as applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 

You enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 10 March 1988. You served for four months without disciplinary incident, but on 15 July 1988, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for unauthorized absence (UA) from your unit for a day. On 25 October 1990, you made a written request for discharge for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial for four instances of UA from your unit totaling 787 days. Prior to submitting this request, you conferred with a qualified military lawyer at which time you were advised of your rights and warned of the probable adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge. Your request was granted and the separating authority directed your other than honorable (OTH) discharge. On 7 December 1990, you were discharged under OTH conditions. 

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your request to upgrade your discharge and your contentions that the County Sheriff Deputy without charges detained you, making you UA, and you want to obtain a security clearance for your private military security company. The Board concluded these mitigating factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case because of the seriousness of your repeated misconduct that resulted in an NJP, a period of UA lasting more than two years and your request for discharge. As a result of your discharge in lieu of trial, you were spared the stigma of a court-martial conviction and the potential penalties of a punitive discharge and confinement at hard labor. In regard to your first contention, the Board relies on a presumption of regularity to support the official actions of public officers and, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, will presume that they have properly discharged their official duties. Your allegations, unsupported in the record or by submission of documentation beyond your allegation failed to overcome that presumption. With regard to your second contention, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment. The Board in its review discerned no material error or injustice in the 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,