Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00646-99
Original file (00646-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
D E P A R T M E N T  O F  T H E  N A V Y  
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 

2 NAVY ANNEX 

WASHINGTON DC  20370-5100 

TJR 
Docket No:  646-99 
22 July 1999 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your 
naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, United 
States Code, Section 1552. 

A  three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval 
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your 
application on 13 July 1999.  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, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, 
and policies. 

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire 
record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient 
to establish the existence of probable material error or 
injustice. 

The Board found you enlisted in the Marine Corps on 20 September 
1973 at the age of 17.  Your record reflects that you served for 
a year without disciplinary incident but on 5 October 1974 you 
were convicted by special court-martial  (SPCM) of a five day 
period of unauthorized absence  (UA) and possession of marijuana. 
You were sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 30 days, 
forfeitures totalling $229, and reduction to paygrade E-1. 

Your record also reflects that on 28 June 1975 you received 
nonjudicial punishment  (NJP) for absence from your appointed 
place of duty.  The punishment imposed was restriction and extra 
duty for 30 days and reduction to paygrade E-1.  The reduction 
was suspended for four months.  Shortly thereafter, on 7 July 
1975, you received NJP for breaking restriction.  The punishment 
imposed was forfeitures totalling $75. 

On 11 August  1975 you began a 185 day period of UA that was not 
terminated until 12 February 1976.  On 18 March 1976 you 
submitted a written request for an undesirable discharge in order 
to avoid trial by court-martial for the foregoing period of UA. 

Your record shows that prior to submitting this request, you 
conferred with a qualified military lawyer at which time you were 
advised of your rights and warned of the probable adverse 
consequences of accepting such a discharge.  Subsequently, your 
request was granted and your commanding officer was directed to 
issue you an undesirable discharge by reason of the good of the 
service.  As a result of this action, you were spared the stigma 
of a court-martial conviction and the potential penalties of a 
punitive discharge and confinement at hard labor.  On 5 April 
1976 you were so discharged. 

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, 
carefully considered all mitigating factors, such as your youth 
and immaturity, and your contention that you would like your 
discharge upgraded.  The Board further considered your contention 
that you were undergoing severe family stress and went UA to help 
with family matters while your father recovered from a heart 
attack.  However, the Board found the evidence and materials 
submitted were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of 
your discharge given the serious nature of your frequent 
misconduct and especially your request for discharge to avoid 
trial for the lengthy period of UA.  The Board believed that 
considerable clemency was extended to you when your request for 
discharge to avoid trial by court-martial was approved since, by 
this action, you escaped the possibility of confinement at hard 
labor and a punitive discharge.  Further, the Board concluded 
that you received the benefit of your bargain with the Marine 
Corps when your request for discharge was granted and you should 
not be permitted to change it now.  Given all the circumstances 
of your case the Board concluded your discharge was proper as 
issued and no change is warranted.  Accordingly, your application 
has been denied. 

The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished 
upon request. 

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 submission of new and material 
evidence or other matter not previously 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, 

W.  DEAN PFEIFFER 
Executive Director 



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01168-01

    Original file (01168-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 August 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. materials submitted were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your frequent and lengthy periods of UA and your request for discharge to avoid trial for a lengthy period of UA. Consequently,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 07422-98

    Original file (07422-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    imposed was confinement for 30 days. On 9 December 1975 you submitted a written request for an undesirable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for the foregoing period of UA. case the Board concluded your discharge was proper as issued and Accordingly, your application has been no change is warranted.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00975-01

    Original file (00975-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your applicatiofi on 10 July 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 1977 you were so discharged. 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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 07460-98

    Original file (07460-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 April 1999. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Given all the circumstances of your case the.Board concluded your discharge was proper as issued and no change is warranted.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00909-02

    Original file (00909-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 July 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. day period of UA that was not terminated until you were apprehended on 29 September 1976. submitted a written request for an undesirable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for the two periods of UA totalling...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00791-01

    Original file (00791-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 June 2001. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. On 17 October 1974 you were convicted by SCM of a 36 day period of unauthorized absence (UA).

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05149-01

    Original file (05149-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 January 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Your record also reflects that on 9 December 1974 you submitted a written request for an undesirable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for two periods of UA totalling four days, absence from your...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00828-01

    Original file (00828-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 June 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. believed that considerable clemency was extended to you when your requests for discharge to avoid trial by court-martial was approved since, by this...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00149-01

    Original file (00149-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge discharae to avoid trial for assault and given your request for ct in the civilian and military communities. your prior miscond that considerable clemency was extended to you The Board believed or discharge to avoid trial by court-martial when your request by this action, you escaped the possibility was approved since Further, srd labor and a punitive discharge. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03000-02

    Original file (03000-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 August 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. your request was granted on 25 March 1976 and, as a result of this action, you were spared the stigma of a court-martial conviction and the potential penalties of...