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

Docket No: 6964-18 
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 14 August 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, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.

You enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 18 January 1978. You served for nearly eight months without disciplinary incident, but during the period from 9 September 1978 to 7 January 1981, you received nonjudicial punishment on six occasions. Your offenses were unauthorized absence from your unit for periods totaling 36 days, wrongful possession of marijuana, sleeping on post, and using disrespectful language toward a noncommissioned officer. Subsequently, you were notified of the initiation of, and rights associated with, administrative separation processing by reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement, at which time you waived your rights to consult with legal counsel and to present your case to an administrative discharge board. Your commanding officer recommended that you be discharged with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service by reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement. The discharge authority approved your commanding officer’s recommendation and directed that you be separated with an OTH characterization of service by reason of misconduct, and on 19 March 1981, you were discharged.

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, including your contention that an OTH discharge is too severe for the misconduct you committed. The Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case because of the seriousness of your repeated misconduct that resulted in six NJPs and periods of UA lasting over a month. Further, you were given an opportunity to defend your actions, but waived your procedural rights. 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. Conduct involving one or more acts of omissions that constitutes a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Marine Corps whether military or civilian infractions can warrant an OTH characterization.  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 at this time. 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,