DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 8640-18 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 13 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, as well as applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 8 June 1979. Commencing approximately six months later, during the period from 18 January 1980 to 20 May 1980, you received three non-judicial punishments (NJP) for misconduct including unauthorized absence (UA) totaling three days, two specifications of absence from your appointed place of duty, failure to address an NCO by his grade, disobeying a lawful order from a commissioned officer, disobeying a lawful order from an NCO, and sleeping on post. On 31 July 1981, you submitted a written request for discharge for the good of the service (GOS) to avoid trial by court-martial for two specifications of UA totaling 288 days. In your personal statement included with your GOS request, you stated, among other things, that you were “not fit for the military,” were “a trouble maker,” “do not like the service,” and “can’t adjust to the military life.” Your statement also references your refusal to “carry a weapon,” but makes no mention of your being a conscientious objector or that you ever claimed or applied for conscientious objector status. Prior to submitting your GOS request, you conferred with a military lawyer, at which time you were advised of your rights and warned of the probable adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge. Your personal statement accompanying your GOS request also specifically states that you consulted with your military lawyer prior to submitting it. Your commanding officer (CO) stated that your three NJPs arose out of “UA, disobedience and disrespect,” and recommended that you be discharged from the naval service with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service. The separation authority agreed with your CO’s recommendation, and directed that you be discharged with an OTH characterization of service for the good of the service. As a result of this action, you were spared the stigma of a court-martial conviction, as well as the potential penalties of such a punitive discharge. Per your request, on 1 September 1981, you were so discharged. The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors in your case, including your desire to upgrade your discharge, and your contention that once it was discovered that you were a conscientious objector in boot camp, you were “humiliated, scrutinized, battered and tortured.” However, the Board found that factors were insufficient to warrant relief in your case, given your misconduct and request for a GOS discharge to avoid a trial by court-martial. Regarding your contention that once it was discovered that you were a conscientious objector in boot camp, you were humiliated, scrutinized, battered and tortured, the Board noted that your service record does not support your contention. Nor did you submit any evidence in support of your contention. Absent such evidence, the Board relied upon the presumption of regularity that attaches to all official records, and presumed that the officials acted in accordance with governing law and policy, and in good faith. Your misconduct began approximately six months after you left boot camp and your offenses, as noted by your CO, all stemmed from UA, disobedience of lawful orders, and disrespectful conduct. Moreover, you had the benefit of legal counsel at the time you submitted your GOS request to avoid trial by court-martial for an extensive period of UA. 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.