DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 2817-21 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 7 June 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). The Board determined that your personal appearance, with or without counsel, would not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. You enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps on 16 March 1972. From 21 July 1972 to 30 November 1972, you absented yourself from your unit on four separate occasions. Your last period of unauthorized absence (UA) ended when you were apprehended by civilian authorities. You were subsequently returned to military control and placed in confinement. On 29 January 1973, you were convicted at a Special Court-Martial for four specifications of UA, and additional charges of disobeying an order and breaking restriction. You were sentenced to confinement at hard labor (CHL) and forfeitures of pay per month for four months; however, CHL and forfeitures in excess of two months was suspended for a period of six months. You were released from confinement on 16 March 1973. From 25 March 1973 to 9 January 1974, you absented yourself from your unit on seven separate occasions, resulting in you receiving four non-judicial punishments and two administrative counseling entries. On 13 February 1974, after consulting with counsel, you submitted a request for an undesirable discharge for the Good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial for four specifications of UA and an additional charge of breaking restriction. Your commanding officer recommended approval of your request. On 18 March 1974, the Staff Judge Advocate found your request to be sufficient in law and fact and recommended approval. After the discharge authority approved your request and directed discharge with an undesirable characterization of service, you were discharged on 2 April 1974 with an other than honorable characterization of service. The Board carefully reviewed your application, weighed all potentially mitigating factors, and considered your contentions that your record is unjust, you were misled by command leadership, you never signed for, or requested, an undesirable discharge, and your signature had been forged. Specifically, you contend that you were told you were receiving a General, under honorable conditions, characterization of service. However, the Board noted in your request for separation, which was witnessed by a judge advocate, that you acknowledged and understood that you may receive an undesirable discharge of under other than honorable conditions if your request was approved. Therefore, the Board concluded there was insufficient evidence of an error or injustice that warrants granting clemency in the form of an upgraded characterization 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 characterization of service based on your contentions above and that you just want a fair hearing before the Board. The Board noted your personal statement; however, further noted that you did not submit any advocacy letters or post-service accomplishments for clemency purposes. 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, 6/15/2021 Executive Director