Docket No: 6799-19 
Ref: Signature Date 

This is in reference to your application of 2 July 2019 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 21 May 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, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 
You enlisted in the Marine Corps Reserve on 3 November 1999.  You served on active duty from 14 August 2000 until 19 January 2001 when you were released after completion of required active service.  On 17 July 2001, you were notified of your Commanding Officer’s intent to administratively reduce you to the next lower rank because of your unsatisfactory participation.  On 1 August 2001, you were administratively reduced to private due to unsatisfactory performance and failure to attend drills.  Subsequently, you were notified of an administrative action to separate you from the naval service for unsatisfactory participation in the ready reserve.  On 11 January 2002, you acknowledged understanding that processing for administrative discharge does not relieve you from your obligation to serve on active duty or inactive duty, to include attending reserve drills, pending final decision. After you waived your procedural rights, the company commander recommended you receive an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service.  On 29 April 2003, your regimental commander recommended an OTH characterization of service for unsatisfactory participation in the ready reserve.  After the Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the separation package and determined it was sufficient in law and fact, the separation authority directed separation with an OTH characterization of service by reason of unsatisfactory participation.  On 2 June 2003, you were so discharged. 

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors and considered your contention that you were unjustly discharged.  Specifically, you contend that your “term began with administrative errors of no fault of my own” and continued while at boot camp and .  You specifically contend you did not receive compensation or gear, even after three years.  You further contend that you received compensation for your active duty service in May 2001, but in 2006, your wages were garnished and you were “forced to repay that allotment.” The Board noted your statement and documentation do not address the fact that you missed more than 72 drills from April 2001 until your discharge.  Further, the Board noted you had communication with your command and were aware of its intention to administratively separate you.  The Board considered your contentions but unfortunately did not find evidence of an error or injustice that warrants upgrading your characterization of service. 

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.