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

Docket No: 8725-18 
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 on1 October 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 26 May 1969.  During the period from 30 March 1970 to 18 September 1970, you received three non-judicial punishments (NJP) for misconduct including sleeping on guard duty, three specifications of unauthorized absence (UA) totaling 39 days and possession of two liberty passes. You also admitted to a UA from 20 September 1970 to 14 August 1971, during which, on 2 April 1971, civil authorities convicted you of burglary. On 23 November 1971, you submitted a written request for discharge for the good of the service (GOS) to avoid trial by court-martial for the aforementioned admitted UA totaling 359 days. 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 your commanding officer (CO) was directed to discharge you with an other than honorable (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. On 30 December 1971, pursuant to your request, you were so discharged.

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors in your case, including your college transcripts, your desire to upgrade your discharge, your contentions that you asked for assistance with your drug addiction, but none was available, and that you received an associate degree since discharge. However, the Board found that these factors were insufficient to warrant relief in your case given your misconduct and request for a GOS discharge in lieu of a trial by court-martial.

Regarding your contention that you asked for assistance with your drug addiction, but none was available, the Board noted that there is no evidence in your record, and you submitted none, to support your contention that you were suffering from a drug addiction while in the Marine Corps, that you ever sought assistance, or that no assistance was available.

Regarding your contention that you received an associate degree since being discharged, the Board noted that, while commendable, your post-service conduct does not excuse your conduct while enlisted in the Marine Corps or the basis for your 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 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,