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 case on its merits. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 August 2019. 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. A review of your record shows that you entered active duty with the Marine Corps in September 1982. On 3 May 1983, non-judicial punishment was imposed on you for disobeying a senior non-commissioned officer’s order. After you failed to report to your appointed place of duty, non-judicial punishment was again imposed on you on 22 August 1983. As you were counselled for your substandard performance on 22 September 1983, you requested to be discharged from the Marine Corps and asserted that your performance would not improve if retained on active duty. You were notified of administrative separation processing on 11 October 1983 for pattern of misconduct and acknowledged your rights. You were medically cleared for separation on 19 October 1983 and discharged on 4 November 1983 for unsatisfactory performance with a General characterization of service. On 12 November 1988, the Naval Discharge Review Board denied your request for an upgrade to your characterization of service. The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve an upgrade to your characterization of service. You assert that you were mistreated and your discharge was unfair and procedurally defective since you were suffering from disability conditions. Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief. First, the Board concluded you were properly discharge for unsatisfactory performance based on your two non-judicial punishments in less than 12 months of active service. In the Board’s opinion, these two documented offenses met the preponderance of evidence standard that your performance was substandard during your brief period of active duty. Further, the Board considered your 23 September 1983 counselling statement in which you stated that your performance would not improve if retained on duty in determining the Marine Corps’ actions were reasonable and supported by the evidence. Regarding your assertion that you were forced to sign the 23 September 1983 statement, the Board found no evidence to support your allegation. Second, while the Board noted that you were treated for flat feet while on active duty and a medical board was considered prior to your discharge, the Board concluded you were ineligible for a medical board based on the Marine Corps’ decision to administratively process you for misconduct. Disability regulations direct that misconduct processing supersede disability processing. Based on these facts, the Board determined you were properly processed and discharged for misconduct vice a disability. Third, the Board found insufficient evidence to support a finding that you were unfit for continued naval service due to your flat feet. They relied on the 19 October 1983 medical separation physical that noted your flat feet but cleared you for separation. In their opinion, since this medical evidence was issued subsequent to the 27 September 1983 medical opinion that referenced a possible medical board, it shows your flat feet symptoms no longer merited consideration for a medical board at the time of your discharge. Finally, the Board considered your request for an upgrade to your characterization of service and concluded that your characterization remains appropriate. A general characterization of service may be issued when significant negative aspects of the member's conduct or performance of duty outweigh positive aspects of the member’s military record. The Board concluded your military record supports that characterization based on the two non-judicial punishments imposed in approximately 14 months of service. The Board found your arguments of mistreatment unpersuasive when compared to the misconduct you committed during your brief career and apparent unwillingness to meet Marine Corps performance standards. In making their findings, the Board substantially concurred with the rationale utilized by the NDRB in their 12 October 1988 decision. Accordingly, the Board concluded insufficient evidence of error or injustice exists to warrant a change to your record. Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to their understanding of the issue(s) involved. Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. 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 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.