Docket No: 2509-19 
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 23 June 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, and the relevant Advisory Opinion (AO) dated 1 April 2020. 
 
You enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty service on 22 May 1980.  On 17 September 1981, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for knowingly violating a lawful written order, to wit, possessing a pair of brass knuckles.  In February 1982, you received a second NJP for operating a vehicle while drunk, driving at an excessive speed, and failing to stop at any stop signs, with a registered reading of 0.15% BAC.  On 12 April 1982, you were counseled regarding your lackadaisical attitude and conduct unbecoming a Marine.  On 7 May 1982, you received NJP for disrespectful language toward a sergeant.  On 27 January 1983, you again received NJP for willfully disobeying a lawful order to participate in the cleanup of the maintenance shop.  On 3 February 1983, you received NJP for unauthorized absence (UA) from 28 January 1983 to 1 February 1983.  On 15 February 1983, you received NJP for breaking restriction.  On 23 February 1983, you received NJP for breaking three windows and breaking restriction.  On 24 February 1983, you were notified of administrative separation proceedings against you.  On 1 March 1983, Commanding Officer, USMC Headquarters Company, , recommended that you receive an other than honorable discharge due to a pattern of involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities.  The Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the proceedings and found your administrative discharge to be sufficient in law and fact.  You were discharged from the Marine Corps on 11 March 1983, on the basis of a pattern of misconduct, and received an other than honorable discharge and a reentry (RE) code of RE-4. 
 
You request an upgrade from an other than honorable discharge to an honorable characterization of service.  You state that your discharge was inequitable because it was based on an incident in which you were defending government property due to flagrant disregard from other Marines.  You assert that you served 34 months and had only 2 months until the end of your enlistment.  You feel the other than honorable discharge was unjust; you provide a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) letter indicating the possibility of eligibility. 
 
As part of the review process, a Physician Advisor reviewed your request, and issued an AO dated 1 April 2020.  The AO noted that you did not present any additional medical records or evidence.  The AO concluded that there is insufficient evidence of a mental health condition attributable to your military service that may have mitigated your misconduct.  The AO was provided to you, and you were given 30 days in which to submit a response.  When you did not provide a response within the 30-day timeframe, your case was submitted to the Board for consideration. 
 
Your request was fully and carefully considered by the Board in light of the Secretary of Defense's 3 September 2014 memorandum, “Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requested by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder,” the 25 August 2017 memorandum, “Clarifying Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Requests by Veterans for Modification of their Discharge Due to Mental Health Conditions, Sexual Assault, or Sexual Harassment,” and the 25 July 2018 memorandum, “Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations.” 
 
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, including your request that your length of service be taken into consideration and your statement that you were defending government property.  The Board took your length of active duty service (2 years, 9 months, and 16 days) into consideration and reviewed the NJPs reflected in your record in light of your claim of defending government property.  The Board concluded that your other than honorable discharge was supported by your numerous NJPs for various infractions to include disrespect, violation of lawful written orders, and UA.  With regard to any mitigating mental health conditions, the Board concurred substantially with the determination of the AO and found that there is insufficient evidence of a mental health condition which may have mitigated your in-service misconduct.  The Board concluded that your other than honorable discharge was issued without error or injustice and that corrective action is not warranted. 
 
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,