Docket No. 5011-19                                                       
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 23 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, 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 20 February 1964.  On 20 August 1964, you received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for unauthorized absence (UA) totaling 12 days.  On 4 June 1965, a general court-martial (GCM) convicted you of two specifications of UA totaling 12 days, escape from lawful confinement, wrongful appropriation of an automobile, and larceny.  You were sentenced to confinement for one year, forfeiture of pay, reduction to E-1, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD).  On 7 December 1965, a restoration Board recommended you be restored to active duty.  However, on 11 January 1966, the Secretary of the Navy denied your restoration to active duty and directed discharge.  On 21 January 1966, you were discharged. 
 
The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade your discharge, contention that NIS investigators used threats of violence and physical force to get a confession from you and another Marine, you were barely 18 years old, and a restoration Board recommended you be restored to active duty.  The Board also noted your contentions that you served your country for 53 years, had a successful professional career, exhibited a lifetime of model behavior, and were a FFL holder for 20 years and a sheriff volunteer.  However, the Board concluded that your misconduct and GCM conviction outweighed your desire to upgrade your discharge. 
 
In regard to your contention that the NIS investigators used threats of violence and physical force to get a confession from you and another Marine, the Board noted that there is no evidence in your record, and you submitted none, to support your contention.  In regard to your contention that you were barely 18 years old, the Board noted that your record reflected your misconduct, and the evidence of record did not show that you were not responsible for your conduct or that you should not be held accountable for your actions.  In regard to your contention that a restoration Board recommended you be restored to active duty, the Board noted that, despite the recommendation, the Secretary of the Navy denied your restoration to active duty and directed your BCD.  Regarding your contentions that you served your country for 53 years, had a successful professional career, exhibited a lifetime of model behavior, and were a FFL holder for 20 years and a sheriff volunteer, the Board noted, while commendable, your post service conduct does not excuse your conduct while enlisted in the Marine Corps or the basis for your discharge. 
 
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, 


8/26/2020


Executive Director