Docket No: 5171-19 
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 22 April 1987.  During the period from 22 October 1987 to 3 February 1988, you received three non-judicial punishments (NJP) for two specifications of  unauthorized absence (UA) totaling nine days, two specifications of failure to go at the prescribed time to your appointed place of duty, absence from appointed place of duty, and disrespectful language toward a non-commissioned officer (NCO).  On 19 February 1988, a summary court-martial convicted you of failure to go at the prescribe time to your appointed place of duty.  Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.  After waving your rights, your commanding officer (CO) recommended that you be discharged from the naval service with an other than honorable characterization of service by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.  The discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed separation under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct.  On 8 April 1988, you were discharged. 
 
The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade your discharge and contentions that you were cooperative and respectful while serving, you have Multiple Myeloma due to drinking the contaminated water at Camp Lejeune, and need benefits and life insurance.  In this regard, the Board concluded that the seriousness of your misconduct outweighed your desire to upgrade your discharge. 
 
In regard to your contention that you were cooperative and respectful while serving, the Board noted that a Marine’s service is characterized at the time of discharge based on performance during the current enlistment.  Regarding your contention that you currently have Multiple Myeloma due to drinking the contaminated water at Camp Lejeune and need benefits and life insurance, Public Law 112-154, “Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012,” requires the Veterans Administration to provide health care to veterans with one or more of 15 specified illnesses or conditions.  You should contact the nearest office of the Department of Veterans Affairs concerning your right to apply for benefits or appeal an earlier unfavorable determination. 
 
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,