Docket No: 11024-19
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  
7 October 2020.  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. 
 
Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to their understanding of the issue(s) involved.  Therefore, the Board determined that 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 28 February 1972.  During the period from 16 March 1972 to 15 June 1972, you received three non-judicial punishments (NJP).  Your offenses were four specifications of failure to obey a lawful order, failure to obey a lawful written order, and disobeying a lawful order.  On 14 September 1974, you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of an unauthorized absence (UA) totaling 224 days.  On 5 May 1976, you submitted a written request for separation for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial for an unauthorized absence for the period from 2 December 1974 to 9 April 1976, totaling 494 days.  Prior to submitting this 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.  As part of this discharge request, you admitted your guilt to the foregoing period of UA and acknowledged that your characterization of service upon discharge would be other than honorable (OTH).  Your request was granted and your commanding officer was directed to issue you an OTH characterization of service for the good of the service.  On 4 June 1976, pursuant to your request, you were so discharged. 
 
The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, including your desire to upgrade your discharge.  The Board considered your contention that you were facing family hardship due to your spouse’s physical and mental health conditions.  While you were with your wife in Ohio, you called your Officer-in-Charge (OIC) at     and explained the situation to him.  Your OIC told you to “stay put in    with your spouse” and you would be sent a hardship discharge.  After two years passed by, you thought you were discharged from the military.  You were apprehended by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and returned to  and offered a plea deal.  You state that you were told that your discharge would be upgraded within a year of your discharge to an honorable discharge; had you known the discharge would not be changed, you would have stayed and fought to get the discharge you believe you should have received.  You further state you have faced serious family hardship, and believe there was a major misunderstanding when you stayed back in Ohio to take care of your spouse.  
 
After careful consideration of your contentions and applying the liberal consideration standard, the Board did not find evidence of an error or injustice that warrants upgrading your characterization of service or sufficient evidence to warrant clemency.  Your application provided no evidence to corroborate your statement that personal problems existed and no evidence that you sought assistance through your chain of command.   
 
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, 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,