Docket No: 2512-21 
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 relevant portions of your naval record and your application, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found the evidence submitted 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 17 May 2021.  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 the 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, applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, to include the 25 July 2018 guidance from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness regarding equity, injustice or clemency determinations (Wilkie Memo). 
 
You enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 11 April 1972.  From 25 July 1972 to 30 September 1972, you absented yourself from your unit on 3 separate occasions, for a total of 30 days, until you either surrendered to, or were apprehended by, civilian authorities.  Your unauthorized absence (UA) resulted in a Special Court-Martial conviction.  You were sentenced to confinement with hard labor for 30 days and forfeitures of $192.00 pay per month for one (1) month.  From 15 December 1972 to 20 August 1973, you once again absented yourself from your unit on 3 separate occasions, totaling 201 days, until you either surrendered to military authorities or was apprehended by civilian authorities.  On 20 September 1973, you submitted a request for an undesirable discharge for the Good of the Service to avoid trial by court-martial for three specifications of UA.  Your assigned legal counsel provided additional information to your request, noting, “he feels he can not adjust to the rigors of military life and feels he could not operate as a productive Marine.”  You acknowledged the information provided by your counsel as being correct and requested that he furnish the information to the commanding general in support of your request for discharge.  On 25 September 1973, a Staff Judge Advocate determined your proceedings to be sufficient in law and fact; however, he concurred with your commanding officer, and recommended court-martial.  On 1 October 1973, the commanding general approved your request and directed discharge by reason of Good of the Service with an undesirable characterization of service.  On 15 October 1973, you were discharged with an other than honorable characterization of service.  Subsequent to your discharge, you petitioned the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) on 19 March 1975, 11 May 1979, and 19 October 1985, requesting a documentary review of your discharge.  The NDRB concluded, in all three reviews, that the discharge should not be changed as it was proper and equitable. 
 
The Board carefully reviewed your application, weighed all potentially mitigating factors, and considered your contention that you were “screwed by a lawyer that showed up at the brig.”  Specifically, you contend that you signed documents, were returned to your unit, and then discharged, despite your desire to finish your tour of duty.  However, the Board noted your acknowledgement of the information contained in legal counsel’s letter to the commanding general dated 19 September 1973.  Specifically, you acknowledged that you were fully aware of the contents contained within legal counsel’s letter, as evidenced by your signature on legal counsel’s letter.   
 
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 characterization of service based on your contentions above.  Based upon this review, the Board concluded these potentially mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant relief.  Specifically, the Board determined that your repeated misconduct 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 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.   
 

Sincerely, 
  

Executive Director