Docket No: 7140-19 
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 11 September 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, policies.   
 
Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined a personal appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the Board determined a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. 
 
You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 20 July 1978.  On 23 August 1979, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for four instances of unauthorized absence (UA) from your appointed place of duty.  On 21 November 1979, you received a second NJP for two periods of UA totaling four days.  On 10 February 1981, you were convicted by special court-martial for four periods of UA consisting of two extended periods from 3 December 1979 to 4 February 1980 and 1 Jul 1980 to 10 December 1980 and two shorter periods of UA. You were sentenced to confinement, forfeiture of pay, and reduction in rank.  On 17 June 1981, you received a third NJP for two instances of UA totaling two days and 30 minutes.  On 15 July 1981, you received a fourth NJP for two specifications of UA totaling less than 24 hours and violating an order by having a female visitor in your barracks room.  Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement with military authorities.  After consulting counsel, you elected your right to an administrative discharge board (ADB).  In each of the endorsements by the chain of command, discharge with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service was recommended.  Although the specific document is not in your record, your waiver of an ADB on 2 February 1982 is referred to several times in the administrative processing of your discharge.  After the staff judge advocate determined on 9 February 1982 that your separation package was sufficient in law and fact, the discharge authority concurred with the chain of command’s recommendations and directed discharge with an OTH characterization of service by reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement with military authorities.  On 8 March 1982, you received an OTH discharge. 
 
The Board carefully reviewed your application, weighed all potentially mitigating factors, and considered your contention that you absented yourself because your mother was terminally ill.  The Board also considered your contention that you were an excellent Marine, and that you were processed out of the Marines without knowledge or notice.  The Board noted that, on 4 September 1981, you consulted counsel regarding your administrative processing.  Further, the Board noted an undated statement in your record, which is written by you to “The Board” regarding your discharge and your explanations for your misconduct.  Lastly, the Board noted that you did not provide any documentation or advocacy letters in support of your request for an upgraded characterization of service.  Unfortunately, after careful consideration of your contentions, the Board did not find evidence of an error or injustice that warrants upgrading your characterization of service, or sufficient evidence to warrant clemency.  Even under the liberal consideration standard, the Board found your misconduct warranted an OTH 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 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,