Docket No: 2894-19 
                                                                                                      Ref: Signature Date 
 
 
 
Dear : 
 
This is in reference to your application of 8 March 2019 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 that 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 19 May 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 June 1975.  On 1 March 1976, you received non-judicial punishments (NJP) for unauthorized absence (UA) totaling eight days.  On 17 June 1976, you submitted a written request for discharge for the good of the service (GOS) to avoid trial by court-martial for two specifications of unauthorized absence (UA) totaling eight days and missing ship’s movement.  Although the Board lacked your entire service record, the Board relied on a presumption of regularity that prior to submitting this request, you conferred with a military lawyer, at which time you were advised of your rights and warned of the probable adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge.  Your request was denied and on 9 November 1976, you received NJP for two specifications of UA totaling eight days, destruction of government property, and missing ship’s movement.  On 6 December 1976, the discharge authority directed that you be discharged with a general under honorable conditions discharge for the good of the service due to failure to meet physical requirements. 
 
As stated previously, the Board relies on a presumption of regularity to support the official actions of public officers and, in the absence of substantial evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Petitioner, the Board presume that you were properly discharged from the Marine Corps.  The Board also noted that character of service is based, in part, on conduct and overall trait averages which are computed from marks assigned during periodic evaluations.  Your conduct average was 3.6. An average of 4.0 in conduct was required at the time of your separation for an honorable characterization of service. 
 
The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors in your case, including your desire to upgrade your discharge and contentions that you went into a UA status after crushing two toes, which prevented you from going to , being threaten by a non-commissioned officer (NCO), and fearing for your life.  The Board also noted your contention that you were told you could write to have your discharge upgraded after five years.  However, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case given your misconduct and the final marks in conduct you received at discharge. 
 
Regarding your contentions that you went into a UA status after crushing two toes, which prevented you from going to , the Board noted that even thought you were not allowed to go to  due to injuring your toes, it does not excuse you misconduct of going UA.  Regarding being threaten by a non-commissioned officer (NCO) and fearing for your life, the Board noted that there is no evidence in your record, and you submitted none, to support your contentions.   
 
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, 
                                                                              
 6/15/2020