Docket No: 3831-18  
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 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 20 May 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 enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 14 June 1988.  On 15 December 1988, you received a retention warning concerning your violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), your “contempt for the discipline, which is required of all Marines,” and the possible consequences of further deficiencies.  Two months later, on 22 February 1989, you received a second retention warning concerning underage drinking, fighting, and poor judgment, and were again warned of the potential consequences of further deficiencies.  At that time, you were also advised to seek counseling from the substance abuse counseling officer and attend an alcohol treatment program.  On 20 June 1989, you received a third retention warning concerning poor personal appearance and failure to properly maintain your uniforms, and again warned of the potential consequences of further deficiences.  On 4 August 1989, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for two days of unauthorized absence (UA).  On 29 May 1990, in accordance with your pleas of guilty, you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of two periods of UA totaling 91 days, and uttering 19 checks with insufficient funds totaling about $900.  Your sentence included confinement, forfeitures of pay, a reduction in pay grade, and to be discharged from the naval service with a bad conduct discharge (BCD).  On 20 November 1991, you waived the opportunity for a 30-day inpatient treatment plan at a Department of Veterans Affairs medical center nearest your home of record, and were discharged with a BCD. 
 
You request that your BCD be upgraded to other than honorable conditions and contend that you were very young at the time of your misconduct and made poor decisions, and that you have changed.   
 
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors in your case, including your record of service, your desire to have your discharge upgraded, the fact that you were young and made poor decisions based on what you thought Marines were supposed to act like, which you thought was “drink, fight, [and] kill,” and that you “did a lot of  drinking [and] fighting.”  The Board also considered your assertions that you are a completely different person now, and believe that if you had matured a little before your discharge, you would still be in the service.  The Board found that these factors and assertions were insufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge, given your misconduct which resulted in an NJP and a SPCM conviction, as well as the fact that you were counseled on more than on occasion about the consequences of further misconduct. 
 
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, 
7/18/2019
Executive Director