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

Docket No: 1605-19 
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 4 March 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. 

You enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 17 April 1968.  On 15 August 1969, you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of an unauthorized absence for the period from 23 April 1969 to 5 June 1969.  On 28 November 1969 and 2 February 1970, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for failing to obey a lawful order and failing to go at the time prescribed to your appointed place of duty.  On 15 October 1970, you submitted a written request for separation for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial for an unauthorized absence (UA) for the period from 9 March 1970 to 17 September 1970.  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.  As part of your 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 discharge by reason of good of the service.  On 4 December 1970, pursuant to your request, you were so discharged.
 

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade your discharge.  The Board considered your contention that you were denied the procedure to claim conscientious objector status while serving on active duty. The Board concluded, however, that these factors were insufficient to warrant relief in your case because of the seriousness of your repeated misconduct and your voluntary request for discharge to avoid trial by court-martial.  In regard to your contention, the Board relies on a presumption of regularity to support the official actions of public officers and, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, will presume that they have properly discharged their official duties. The Board noted that, other than your assertion, the record contains no evidence to support your contention, and you submitted none.  Therefore, the Board discerned no probable material error or injustice in 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 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,