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

Docket No: 4846-18 
Ref: Signature date

Dear       :

This letter is in reference to your reconsideration request received on 4 June 2018. You previously petitioned the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) and were advised that your application had been disapproved. 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 the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Consequently, your application has been denied.

Because your application was submitted with a new statement and new evidence that was not previously considered, the Board found it in the interest of justice to review your most recent application. Your current request was carefully examined by a three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, on 15 August 2019.  The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.  Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, available portions of your naval record, as well as applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.

Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined a personal appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to its understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the Board determined 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 27 January 1969. It appears you served without disciplinary incident until 12 February 1970 when you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for an unauthorized absence (UA) from 23 January 1970 to
9 February 1970. You were again in a UA status from 26 May 1970 to 1 January 1971 when you surrendered to FBI agents and admitted that you had been in     and used a variety of illegal drugs. On 26 February 1971, you submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial, but your request was disapproved by the commanding general because your commanding officer recommended you be sent to a general court-martial for desertion.  You began another period of UA on 10 March 1971 which ended when you were apprehended by civilian authorities on 23 March 1971. On 29 March 1971, you received NJP for disobeying a superior commissioned officer. On 12 May 1971, you were convicted by general court-martial (GCM) for desertion and UA. You were sentenced to forfeiture, confinement, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD).  On 26 October 1971, you requested that you not be restored to duty and that the discharge be executed. In your request, you stated you never received help or leadership even though you had encountered substantial difficulties in the military. You also stated that you could not tolerate the total lack of concern for the welfare of you and other men in the service. Subsequently, the BCD was approved at all levels of review, and on 15 December 1971, you were discharged.

The Board considered your request to upgrade your characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions (GEN), because your decision to leave the Navy was driven by extenuating personal and family matters. Specifically, you contend your parents were divorcing and your mother and three younger siblings needed your help. You further contend you applied for a hardship discharge but it was repeatedly delayed for over six months which exacerbated your concern to a level of total despair. You also contend that, at the point of total despair, you made the regrettable decision to take a hallucinatory drug that dramatically affected your mental state which provides indication of why you did not have a clear mind when you made the decision to go UA. The Board considered the numerous handwritten letters to your family from boot camp through confinement and noted it does not appear you returned home to assist your mother and three siblings, but instead traveled to Canada.

The Board also considered your contention that your outstanding post-service conduct warrants relief. Specifically, the Board considered the numerous advocacy letters submitted on your behalf detailing your contributions to your family, community, and your church. Additionally, the Board considered your personal explanation of the facts leading to the GCM and BCD, as well as the detailed account of your post-service accomplishments.

The Board cannot set aside a conviction, but may grant clemency in the form of changing a characterization of service. The Board found, however, that your respectable post-service record did not warrant clemency given the seriousness of your in-service misconduct. Additionally, the Board did not find evidence of an error or injustice warranting a change to your discharge characterization.

It is regretted that the circumstances of your reconsideration petition 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 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,