DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 
             
Docket No: 2021-19                                   
Ref: Signature Date 

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 Boards, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 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, as well as applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 

You enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 20 February 1976.  During the period from 17 May 1976 to 23 September 1977, you received eight non-judicial punishments (NJP) for wrongful possession of live rounds, sleeping on watch on two occasions, leaving your appointed place of duty, unauthorized absence, failure to obey a lawful order on two occasions, willfully disobeying a lawful order, insubordinate conduct, wrongful possession of marijuana and driving onboard a military installation while your driving privileges were suspended.  On 2 February 1978, you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of unauthorized absence totaling five days, assault, and breaking restriction.  As punishment, you were awarded confinement and forfeiture of pay.  Your commanding officer (CO) recommended that you be administratively discharged from the naval service with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service. On 30 August 1978, you received your ninth NJP for three specifications of unauthorized absence.  Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative action to separate you from the naval service.  After consulting with legal counsel, you elected to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB). An ADB was convened and found that you committed misconduct and recommended administrative discharge from the naval service with an OTH characterization of service. The Staff Judge Advocate found the proceedings were sufficient in law and fact and recommended administrative discharge with an OTH characterization of service. The separation authority approved the recommendation and directed administrative discharge with an OTH characterization of service. On 18 December 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 when you signed your discharge paperwork you were never informed of the type of discharge you were receiving.  You believe that, at the time of your discharge, it would have been honorable. The Board concluded that these factors were insufficient to warrant relief in your case because of the seriousness of your repeated misconduct that resulted in nine NJPs and a SPCM conviction.  Regarding 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.  Your allegation, unsupported in the record or by submission of documentation, failed to overcome that presumption.  Under the totality of the circumstances, the Board discerned no probable material error or injustice in the 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, 

4/8/2020