DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 7306-19 Ref: Signature Date 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 9 December 2019. 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 17 July 2006. On 22 May 2008, allegations of spousal and child abuse against you were referred to the Family Advocacy Program for case review. On 27 August 2008, you were convicted by summary (SCM) for violating Uniform Code of Military Justice Articles 128 (assaulting your spouse) and 134 (communicating a threat). You were sentenced to restriction and reduction in rank to E-1. On 28 August 2008, you were counseled that you were eligible, but not recommended for promotion due to your court-martial conviction. Subsequently, administrative discharge action was initiated. On 8 January 2009, you were counseled regarding the 12-month suspension of your administrative separation and advised that further misconduct would result in vacating that suspension. On 10 September 2009, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for conspiracy and attempted larceny of government property and awarded restriction and extra duties. On 24 November 2009, you were discharged with an under other than honorable (OTH) conditions characterization of service, a narrative reason for separation of misconduct, and a separation code HKQ1. On 17 February 2012, the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) advised you of their decision that your discharge was proper as issues and no change was warranted. On 5 July 2017, the NDRB advised you of their decision on the reconsideration of your case. They determined your discharge was proper, but not equitable and changed the characterization of service to general (under honorable conditions). However, the narrative reason for separation and separation code remained the same. You request the Board upgrade your discharge to honorable and change the narrative reason for separation. You assert you discharge was inequitable because you were wrongfully accused of conspiring with another Marine to defraud the government when you were not present at the actual attempted larceny. You claim that following your court-martial, your administrative separation was suspended and your belief that you would have received an honorable discharge if you had not been wrongfully accused. Lastly, you stated you were experiencing significant family problems which affected your ability to serve.” In support ofyour petition, you attached NDRB documents, the clinical counseling services Case Review Committee (CRC) Notification dated 22 May 2008; and an application for DITY move dated 20 July 2009. The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your record of service and contentions but concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change to your discharge given your misconduct that resulted in an SCM and a NJP. With respect to your contention that you were wrongfully accused of conspiracy because you were not present, the Board found insufficient evidence in the record to show that you were absent in a way that you did not contribute to an attempted larceny. With respect to your contention that absent being wrongfully accused of conspiracy, you would have received an honorable discharge, the Board noted that you also had an SCM conviction for assault and communicating a threat. With respect to your contention regarding the significant issues impacting your ability to serve, the Board noted that you provided no evidence beyond the CRC Notification to support your contentions. Absent substantial evidence, the Board relied upon the presumption of regularity and presumed that the officials acted in good faith according to governing law and policy. 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. 3