Docket No: 3342-19 
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 28 July 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 on 17 January 1975.  On 17 August 1975, you were admitted to the hospital after sustaining a puncture wound from a knife fight.  On 4 September 1975, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for disrespecting a noncommissioned officer.  On 5 February 1976, you received a second NJP for disobeying a written order.  On 22 June 1976, you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) for an unauthorized absence (UA) from 16 April 1976 to 17 May 1976 and sentenced to hard labor without confinement, forfeiture, and reduction in rank.  On 19 July 1976, you began another period of UA which lasted until your apprehension at t when you arrived from the  on 17 December 1979.  On 4 February 1980, you were convicted by SPCM for the 942-day UA.  You were sentenced to a bad conduct discharge (BCD), confinement at hard labor, and forfeiture.  The record is incomplete in that the appellate review documentation is not in your record, but a review of your Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) reflects that the BCD was subsequently approved at all levels of review.  On 15 May 1981, you were discharged. 
 
The Board carefully reviewed your application, weighed all potentially mitigating factors, and considered your contention that you were a victim of a hate crime.  Specifically, you contend that after being stabbed at 18-years old, you became paranoid, depressed, and “felt that I needed to get away from the area because I did not feel safe in the Marine Corps.”  The Board considered your regret and remorse for making the decision to leave and your post-service record. In regards for your request for clemency, the Board considered the professional certificates and advocacy letters submitted on your behalf which describe you as a hardworking, dedicated family man who “left the past behind him and has been on a moral path” and a dependable part of an organ recovery team.  The Board noted that, although it cannot set aside a conviction, it may grant clemency in the form of changing a characterization of service, even one awarded by a court-martial.  The Board commends you on your post-service accomplishments, and in the interest of justice considered your case based on clemency.  Nonetheless, the Board found that the severity of your misconduct does not warrant clemency at this time.    
 
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,