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

Docket No: 622-18 

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 you did not file your application 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 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 enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 27 August 1982.  On 8 November 1982, you were granted a waiver for pre-service drug use and retained in the Marine Corps.  On 31 May 1983, you were in an unauthorized absence (UA) status from your unit until 19 July 1984, a period of 413 days.  On 26 July 1984, you made a written request for discharge for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial for the foregoing period of UA.  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 commanding officer directed that you be discharged with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service.  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.  On 14 August 1984, you were discharged with an OTH characterization of service. 

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, including your contention that you were told this was the only way out since your request for MOS transfer was denied and that your discharge would be upgraded.  The Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case because of the seriousness of your misconduct that resulted in a period of UA lasting over a year and your request for discharge.  The Board believed that considerable clemency was extended to you when your request for discharge to avoid trial by court-martial was approved.  In regard to your 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 failed to overcome that presumption.  Finally, there is no provision of law or in Marine Corps regulations that allows for recharacterization of service due solely to the passage of time.  The Board, in its review, discerned no impropriety or inequity 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 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, 

6/19/2019