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

Docket No: 927-19 
Ref: Signature Date 


This is in reference to your application of 14 November 2018 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 14 January 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 and began a period of active duty on 6 March 1974.  On 17 February 1976, you submitted a written request for discharge for the good of the service (GOS) to avoid trial by court-martial for two specifications of unauthorized absence (UA) totaling 435 days.  Prior to submitting this request, you conferred with a military lawyer, at which time you were advised of your rights and warned of the probable adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge.  Your request was granted and your commanding officer (CO) was directed to issue an other than honorable (OTH) discharge for the good of the service.  As a result of this action, you were spared the stigma of a court-martial conviction, as well as the potential penalties which could have included a punitive discharge.  On 10 March 1976, you were discharged. 
The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors in your case, including your desire to upgrade your discharge and contention that you went UA because your unit was scheduled to go on a ship to do water training and you almost drowned during previous watering training. 

The Board also considered your contention that you were told you could receive a medical discharge but chose an OTH discharge because you thought it was better.  However, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case given your misconduct and request for a GOS discharge in lieu of a trial by court-martial.  Regarding your contention that you went UA because your unit was scheduled to go on a ship to do water training and you almost drowned during previous watering training, the Board noted that there is no evidence in your record, and you submitted none, to support your contention. Regarding your contention that you were told you could receive a medical discharge but chose an OTH discharge because you thought it was better, the Board noted that the record contains documented evidence which is contrary to your contention.  The record shows that on 17 February 1976, you requested a GOS discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  Prior to submitting this request, you conferred with a military lawyer, and you acknowledge the adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge in your request for a GOS discharge. 
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.