Docket No: 4840-19 
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 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 16 June 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, as well as applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 
 
You enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active service on 10 July 1978.  During the period from 21 August 1979 to 29 May 1981, you received four non-judicial punishments (NJP) for unauthorized absence (UA) totaling 6 days, possession of marijuana, and two specifications of absence from your appointed place of duty.  On 9 March 1981, a summary court-martial (SCM) convicted you of five days of UA and losing your M16 rifle.  On 10 October 1981, a special court-martial (SPCM) convicted you of larceny from another Marine.  You were sentenced to confinement for 90 days, forfeiture of pay, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD).  On 10 May 1982, you received NJP for five specifications of UA totaling 30 day.  On 27 July 1982, the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review approved your sentence of a BCD.  On 3 February 1983, a second SPCM convicted you of UA totaling 118 days and wrongful possession of marijuana.  You were sentenced to confinement for 5 months, forfeiture of pay, and a BCD.  After the BCD was approved at all levels of review, on 2 June 1983, you were discharged. 
 
The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade your discharge and contentions that you were not correctly informed of the reason why you were discharged, your discharge was rushed, and you were unable to fight for yourself.  The Board also noted your contention that you need Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits.  The Board concluded that your current characterization does not reflect an error or injustice that merits corrective action. 
 
Regarding your contentions that you were not correctly informed of the reason why you were discharged, your discharge was rushed, and you were unable to fight for yourself, the Board noted that the record contains documented evidence which is contrary to your contention.  The record shows that you were convicted by two separate SPCMs on two separate occasions of which both convicted you and sentenced you to a BCD.  Regarding the contention that you need VA benefits, whether or not you are eligible for benefits is a matter under the cognizance of the VA, and you should contact the nearest office of the VA concerning your right to apply for benefits.  If you have been denied benefits, you should appeal that denial under procedures established by the VA. 
 
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.