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

Docket No: 3415-19                                                          
Ref: Signature Date 

This is in reference to your application of 18 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 7 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, relevant portions of your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 

You reenlisted in the Marine Corps on 23 July 1980.  According to the information in your record, On 7 October 1980, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for disrespect in language toward a non-commissioned officer (NCO).  On 18 February 1981, you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of absence from appointed place of duty, disobeying a lawful order, and being disrespectful in language toward an NCO.  You waived your right to be represented by counsel and the convening authority found the SCM sufficient in law and fact on 6 March 1981.  At an unknown time, you submitted a written request for discharge for the good of the service (GOS) to avoid trial by court-martial for four specifications of unauthorized absence (UA) totaling 65 days.  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 granted and your commanding officer (CO) was directed to issue an other than honorable (OTH) discharge for the good of the service.  As a result of this action, you were spared the stigma of a court-martial conviction, as well as the potential penalties of such a punitive discharge.  On 28 October 1981, you were so discharged. 

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors in your case, including your desire to upgrade your discharge, change your narrative reason for separation, and contentions that you were found not guilty at your SCM and your CO was removed from command and shipped to          .  However, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case given your misconduct and request for a GOS discharge in lieu of a trial by court-martial. 

Regarding your contention that you were found not guilty at your SCM, the Board noted that the record contains documentation which is contrary to your contention.  The record shows that on 18 February 1981, a SCM convicted you of absence from appointed place of duty, disobeying a lawful order, disrespectful in language toward an NCO and sentenced you to 30 days confinement and forfeiture of pay.  Regarding your contention that your CO was removed from 
command and shipped to       , the Board noted that there is no evidence in your record, and you submitted none, to support your contention. 

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, 


5/29/2020