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

Docket No: 9071-19 
Ref: Signature Date 
 
Dear : 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your late husband’s 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 you did not file your application in a timely manner, the statute of limitation was waived in accordance with the 25 August 2017 guidance from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (Kurta Memo). A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 September 2020. The names and votes of the panel members 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 husband’s naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, to include the Kurta Memo, the 3 September 2014 guidance from the Secretary of Defense regarding discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Hagel Memo), and the 25 July 2018 guidance from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations (Wilkie Memo). 

Your husband enlisted in the Marine Corps on 26 March 1969. On 6 October 1969, he began a period of unauthorized absence (UA) that terminated with his apprehension on 21 December 1969. On 8 January 1970, he received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for the aforementioned period of UA. On 1 February 1970, your husband arrived in the  ( ), where is participated in two named combat operations. On 21 October 1970, he requested a good of the service discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial for the charges of drunk on watch in a combat area and possession of barbituates. Prior to submitting this request, he would have conferred with a qualified military lawyer, at which time he would have been advised of his rights and warned of the probable adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge. On 28 October 1970, his commanding officer recommended approval of your husband’s request. 

On 6 November 1970, the separation authority approved the request discharge and directed that your husband be transferred to the United States for his subsequent discharge. On 19 November 1970, your husband departed. On 24 November 1970, he was discharged with an under conditions other than honorable character of service. 

The Board carefully considered all potentially mitigating factors to determine whether the interests of justice warrant relief in your case in accordance with the Wilkie Memo. These included, but were not limited to, your desire to upgrade your husband’s discharge, his post-service accomplishments and contentions that your husband saved the lives of hundreds of Marines, he suffered maltreatment by his lieutenant, that he suffered a variety of illnesses due to his military service. Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief. Specifically, the Board determined that the severity of his misconduct and your lack of documentation to support your contentions outweighed these mitigating factors. Accordingly, given the totality of the circumstances, the Board determined that your request does not merit relief. 

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, 
1/22/2021