Docket No: 11249-19 
Ref: Signature Date 
 
  
Dear :  
 
This letter is in reference to your application for correction of your husband’s naval record pursuant to Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552.  Thank you for your submission on your husband’s behalf, and please accept our deepest condolences for your loss.  Regrettably, 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, the application was denied.     
 
Although the application was filed outside the three year time period from discovery of an alleged error or injustice, the Board found it in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations and consider the application on its merits.  A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 September 2020.  The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.  The 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 husband’s naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 
  
Your husband enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 13 July 1999.  His service record indicates the following disciplinary and administrative actions.  On 5 July 2000, he received a retention warning for underage drinking and false official statement to a senior noncommissioned officer.  On 26 July 2000, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed on him for failure to obey a lawful order and unauthorized absence.  On 29 September 2000, NJP was imposed on him for failure to obey a lawful order.   On 20 November 2000, he failed alcohol rehabilitation and was recommended for administrative separation from the service.  On 18 January 2001, NJP was imposed on him for disobeying a superior commissioned officer.  On 12 November 2001, he was convicted at a Summary Court-Martial (SCM) of disrespect to a superior commissioned officer and willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer.  These charges were initially preferred to a Special Court-Martial; however, after consulting with defense counsel, your husband elected to plead guilty at the SCM, a less severe forum, and waive an administrative separation board in accordance with a pretrial agreement dated 1 October 2001.  Subsequently, administrative separation action was initiated against him for alcohol rehabilitation failure and misconduct.  On 5 February 2002, he consulted his defense counsel and waived an administrative separation board.  On 5 February 2002, his Squadron Commanding Officer (CO) recommended he be administratively separated with an Under Other than Honorable Conditions (OTH) discharge.  On 12 February 2002, his Marine Aircraft Group CO recommended he be administratively separated with an OTH discharge.  On 6 March 2003, the Separation Authority directed he be administratively separated with an OTH discharge.  On 20 March 2002, he was administratively separated with an OTH discharge.  On 28 July 2017, the Naval Discharge Review Board denied an upgrade of his discharge.   
 
You requested an upgrade of your husband’s discharge.  You contend your husband’s character of discharge was unrelated to his character as a Marine, alcoholism was a major factor until his death, and he was separated due to several incidents of underage drinking.  You also asserted that had he been 21 instead of 19, he would not have had any disciplinary issues.  You conveyed that he expressed deep sorrow to you that he could not serve more terms as a Marine and that he was always sorry for his actions.  Finally, you asked to have his discharge upgraded so he can be buried in a veterans cemetery.  The Board concluded these factors and assertions were not sufficient to warrant a change to his discharge given the misconduct reflected in his service record.  The Board also noted that your husband waived his rights with regard to discharge proceedings.  By doing so, he waived his first, and best opportunity to advocate for retention or a more favorable characterization of discharge.   
  
It is regretted that the circumstances of your husband’s 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 on your husband’s behalf.  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 or personal representative to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.   
 
 Sincerely,