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

Docket No: 2516-19 
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 25 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 11 July 1979.  On 27 August 1980, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for disrespect to a superior commissioned officer and for an unauthorized absence totaling 20 days.  On 20 February 1981, you submitted a written request for separation for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial for two specifications of unauthorized absence (UA) totaling 139 days, disobeying the lawful order of a commissioned officer, and disobeying an order from a non-commissioned officer.  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 a part of this discharge request, you admitted your guilt to the foregoing periods of UA, disobeying the lawful order of a commissioned officer, and disobeying an order from a non-commissioned officer, 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 discharge by reason of good of the service.  On 13 March 1981, pursuant to your request, you were so discharged. 

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, including your submission of supporting documentation and your desire to upgrade your discharge.  The Board considered your assertion that your certificate says general discharge, but your long form DD Form 214 says to escape trial by court-martial, which you do not have anymore.  The Board concluded that these factors were insufficient to warrant relief in your case because of the seriousness of your misconduct and subsequent discharge at your request to avoid trial by court-martial.  Regarding your assertion, the Board considered your supporting documentation; however, there is no evidence in the record that supports you received a general discharge.  Further, the record contains documented evidence, which is contrary to your contention.  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,