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

Docket No: 3610-19 
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 21 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, as well as applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 

You originally enlisted in the Marine Corps on 14 March 1968 and reenlisted on 2 April 1971.  In November 1974, your commanding officer (CO) ordered a command investigation (CI) into your indebtedness to multiple local merchants and a credit union.  On 19 December 1974, you went to non-judicial punishment (NJP) for writing two worthless checks to the Navy Exchange (NEX).  The evidence showed that the bank account you attempted to write both checks from was closed.
 
On 9 January 1975, the CI revealed that your command had received no less than ten (10) letters of indebtedness from local merchants, that you were past due on an account for a signature loan at a credit union, and that you wrote two bad checks to the NEX.  The investigating officer noted that the CI was prolonged because additional letters of indebtedness arrived at the command during the course of compiling the CI report.  On the CO’s 1 July 1975 endorsement to the CI, he noted that he received 4 additional letters of indebtedness since the CI was completed, and observed that you had not made any payments towards any of your just and/or delinquent consumer debts. 

On 27 June 1975, you were notified that you were being processed for an administrative discharge for unsuitability due to financial irresponsibility.  On 30 June 1975, you elected to consult with counsel, but waived your right to present your case to an administrative separation board.  On 17 July 1975, the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) approved your discharge by reason of unsuitability.
 
However, on 18 July 1975, a Navy Medical Board (MB) determined you were unfit for further active duty due to a knee injury that required surgery in January 1975.  The MB referred your case to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) for final disposition.  On 8 August 1975, the PEB diagnosed you with post-traumatic ligament instability (right knee) and gave you a 10% disability rating. 

On 11 September 1975, the Head, Separation and Retirement Branch requested from HQMC Military Law Branch a recommendation as to whether the ultimate disposition in your case should be a discharge for unsuitability or for a physical disability with severance pay.  On 11 September 1975, the HQMC Judge Advocate Division recommended that you be discharged for unsuitability due to financial irresponsibility.  On 16 September 1975, the CMC specifically recommended to the Secretary of the Navy that you receive an unsuitability discharge and not a disability discharge.  Ultimately, on 2 January 1976 you were discharged from the Marine Corps with a general (under honorable conditions) (GEN) characterization of service by reason of financial irresponsibility. 

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, including your contentions that included, but were not limited to:  (a) that bounced checks at your command were taken care of by the company commander or first sergeant and not at office hours/NJP, and (b) that your DD­214 states “general under honorable conditions” when you believe it should read “Medical Discharge due to Disability, Post traumatic ligament instability,” or words to that effect.  However, the Board found that your contentions and mitigating factors were not sufficient to modify your discharge or grant any other relief in your case given the overall seriousness of your pattern of indebtedness.  The Board also noted CMC had a choice between an unsuitability discharge and a disability discharge for you, and CMC expressly recommended to the SECNAV that you be separated for unsuitability for financial irresponsibility and not for medical reasons.  Accordingly, the Board determined that there was no probable material error or injustice in your involuntary discharge, and the Board concluded that your service-discrediting behavior merited your receipt of a non-disability GEN and that your separation was in accordance with all Department of the Navy directives and policy at the time of your discharge.
 
Additionally, the Board reviewed your application under the recent guidance provided in the Under Secretary of Defense’s memorandum dated 25 July 2018 entitled, “Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Regarding Equity, Injustice, or Clemency Determinations” (USD Memo).  The purpose of the USD Memo is to ease the process for veterans seeking redress and assist Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records “in determining whether relief is warranted on the basis of equity, injustice, or clemency.” The USD Memo noted that “increasing attention is being paid to…the circumstances under which citizens should be considered for second chances and the restoration of rights forfeited,” and that “BCM/NRs have the authority to upgrade discharges or correct military records to ensure fundamental fairness.” The USD Memo sets clear standards and principles to guide BCM/NRs in lication of their equitable relief authority, and further explains that boards shall consider a number of factors to determine whether to grant relief, such as positive or negative post-service conduct, including any arrests or convictions.  However, even in light of the USD Memo, the Board still concluded that, given the totality of the circumstances, your request does not merit relief. 

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,