Docket No: 11300-19 
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 14 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 4 November 1976.  On 11 July 1977, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for wrongful possession of marijuana.  On 30 September 1977, you were convicted by summary court-martial of an unauthorized absence (UA) totaling four days, and wrongful possession of marijuana.  On 19 December 1977, you were counseled concerning your poor performance of duty.  On 22 February 1978 and 28 February 1978, you received NJP for UAs, totaling 18 days, and failure to go at the time prescribed to your appointed place of duty.  On 1 March 1978 and 25 July 1978, you were again counseled concerning substandard performance, and poor and unsatisfactory in the performance of your duties.  On 15 August 1978, you received your fourth NJP for absence from your appointed place of duty.  
 
Subsequently, on 5 September 1978, you were notified of pending administrative action to separate you from the naval service because of misconduct due to frequent involvement with military authorities.  You were advised of, and waived your procedural right to consult with and be represented by military counsel, and your right to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB).  Your commanding officer (CO) forwarded your package to the separation authority and recommended administrative discharge from the naval service with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service.  The separation authority approved the CO’s recommendation and directed that you be separated from the naval service with an OTH characterization of service.  On 20 November 1978, you were so discharged. 
 
The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors in your case, including your desire to upgrade your discharge.  The Board considered your contention that your charges were misdemeanors, there was no legal representation offered, and you were encouraged to plead guilty.  
 
The Board noted that on 5 September 1978, you waived your right to consult with military counsel and your right to present your case before an AD.  The Board noted you did not provide any documentation or advocacy letters in support of your request for an upgrade of your characterization of service.  Unfortunately, after careful consideration of your contentions, the Board did not find evidence of an error or injustice that warrants upgrading your characterization of service, or sufficient evidence to warrant clemency.  Even under the liberal consideration standard, the Board found your misconduct warranted an OTH characterization of service.   
 
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,