DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 A RLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 7762-19 Ref: Signature date This letter is in reference to your husband application for correction of his 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, his application has been denied. Although the 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 his application on its merits. A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered the application on 18 November 2019. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request. The 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 ’ application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of his naval record, as well as applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty service on 20 June 1994. He served honorably through 29 May 1998, when he reenlisted for a second period of active duty. In the fall/winter of 1998, he stated that he came home unexpectedly from a two-week training period to find his then-wife with another man. He then absented himself from his unit without authorization (“unauthorized absence” or “UA”) on 26 October 1998, voluntarily returning on 30 October 1998. He had another period of UA commencing on 25 December 1998, that terminated on 5 February 1999, when he was apprehended by civil authorities. On 16 March 1999, he was found guilty at summary court-martial (SCM) for the two periods of UA. again went UA on 20 April 1999, and the UA was terminated by apprehension by civil authorities on 16 May 2000. On 7 July 2000, in accordance with his plea of guilty, he was convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of this period of UA. His adjudged sentence included 80 days confinement, forfeitures of $400 pay per month for a period of three months, reduction in rank to E-1, and to be discharged from the naval service with a bad-conduct discharge (BCD). The Navy and Marine Corps Appellate Leave Activity approved the sentence, to include the execution of the BCD, and on 4 October 2001, he was so discharged. requested an upgrade to his bad conduct discharge and a change to his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) to reflect his highest paygrade and all foreign service. asked that his outstanding and honorable service for four straight years with several deployments, along with earning the highest paygrade of E-5 and his receipt of numerous medals and honors, be taken into consideration. submitted a personal statement, along with letters of support from his fellow Marines who served alongside him. The letters of support note that was diagnosed with Stage IV cancer after his discharge, and state that he is deserving of an upgrade of his discharge. The letters of support note that let personal family matters impact his decisions while serving in the Marine Corps. The Board, in its review of entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, including his outstanding service prior to his periods of UA. The Board also noted that passed on 15 March 2019, shortly after his submission of the application for correction to his record. The Board was sympathetic to personal struggles, including his marital issues while in the Marine Corps, and his battle with cancer following his discharge. The Board also weighed the letters of support from fellow Marines, and took into account his personal statement. The Board found, however, that clemency was not warranted given the seriousness of the misconduct as reflected by the frequency and length of UAs. The Board noted that his last period of UA was terminated by apprehension. The Board found that the reduction in rank to E-1 and the bad conduct discharge were issued without error and injustice at the special court-martial. The Board also noted that DD Form 214 reflects 1 year, 1 month and 13 days of sea service. Accordingly, the Board did not find evidence in record that merited a change to his foreign service, as his sea service appears to encompass his periods of deployment. The Board concluded that no corrective action is warranted, and that record does not reflect any probable material error or injustice. It is regretted that the circumstances of the 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 on behalf of , 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, 1/12/2020