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

Docket No: 6797-19
Ref: Signature Date 

Dear  

This letter 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 2 March 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 and began a period of active duty on 8 August 1989.  On 12 January 1990, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for disobeying a lawful order and awarded restriction, extra duties, and forfeiture of pay, which was suspended for six months.  On 11 April 1990, you received a second NJP for unauthorized absence (UA), and the suspended forfeiture of pay from your previous NJP was vacated.  On 4 May1990 and 7 July 1990, you were counseled regarding your deficiencies and advised that failure to take corrective action could result in administrative separation and judicial proceedings.  On 20 December 1990, you received a third NJP for wrongfully appropriation of another Marine’s telephone card services, and were awarded forfeiture of pay, restriction, and extra duties.  On 8 October 1991, you were charged with stealing property from the Army & Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) and were pending trial before a special court-martial (SPCM).  On 13 November 1991, after consulting with legal counsel, you requested a to be administratively discharged for the good of the service (GOS) under other than honorable (OTH) conditions to avoid trial by SPCM. As part of your request, you voluntarily admitted your guilty in writing to the aforementioned SPCM charges. 

On 23 November 1991, your GOS request was approved.  On 10 January 1992, pursuant to your request, you were discharged with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service.
 
You request the Board upgrade your discharge, although you did not specify the characterization of service you desire.  You assert that another Marine shoplifted some items from the Exchange and implicated you, even though you had nothing to do with it.  You state that you were appointed a Marine Corps lawyer who advised you to request a GOS because you had prior offenses, and that the real culprit was not convicted at his court-martial.  You believe that if you had accepted a special court-martial, you would not need to request an upgrade.  Lastly, you state you are now a homeowner, a Mason, a devoted church member and family man, and you work as a youth counselor.  In support of your petition, you attached character letters from your spouse, a police officer, fellow Marines, and other members of your community.
 
The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your record of service and contentions.  However, the Board concluded these factors were insufficient to warrant a change to your discharge, given your misconduct that resulted in three NJPs and pending charges when you requested a GOS.  The Board noted that you provided no evidence to support your contentions.  Absent of such evidence, the Board relied upon the presumption of regularity and presumed that the officials acted in accordance with governing law/policy and in good faith.  The Board noted your post-service accomplishments; however, there is no provision of law or in Navy regulations that allows for recharacterization of service due solely to the passage of time. 

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,