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 NAW ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
T JR
Docket No: 695-99
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 Na-1
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 16 September
1969 at the age of 19. Your record reflects that on 31 May 1969
you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for absence from your
appointed place of duty. The punishment imposed was restriction
and extra duty for 14 days and forfeitures totalling $21.
Your record further reflects that on 12 June 1972 you were
convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of four periods of
unauthorized absence (UA) totalling 938 days. You were sentenced
to confinement at hard labor for five months, forfeitures
totalling $820, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD). The findings
and sentence of the SPCM were reviewed and approved and
subsequently, the BCD was ordered executed. However, prior to
receiving the BCD, you were in an UA status on three occasions
during the period from 21 August 1972 to 17 August 1978, for a
total of 2,123 days. While in this UA status, you were also
declared a deserter.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth and immaturity and your contention that you would like
your discharge upgraded. The Board also considered your
contentions that the BCD was overly harsh punishment for the
offense of UA, your wife had been ill, you have paid long enough
for your mistake, and draft dodgers and deserters were given
amnesty. However, the Board concluded these factors were not
sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given
the seriousness of your frequent and lengthy periods of UA from
the Marine Corps. Further, no discharge is upgraded merely
because of the passage of time. Given all the circumstances of
your case, the Board concluded your discharge was proper 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
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 07464-98
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 24 October 1973 you submitted a written request for immediate execution of the BCD. veterans1 benefits after being discharged with a BCD.
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 07460-98
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 | CY1999 | 01099-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Na-1 Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 July 1999. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your husband's naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. On 23 April 1969 the commanding officer recommended your husband be issued an undesirable discharge by reason of unfitness.
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 08805-98
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 July 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. However, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given the seriousness of your frequent...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 09384-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 August 2003. You received NJP on 22 February 1992 for a 17 period of unauthorized absence (UA) and were awarded restriction and extra duty for 4 5 days and a $550 forfeiture of pay. However, the record does not reflect that any disciplinary action was taken for this period of UA.
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01128-99
A three-raember panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 July 1999. The punishment imposed was forfeitures totalling $75 and restriction for 10 days. However, t h e Board found the evidence and materials submitted w e r e n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o warrant r e c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f your d i s c h a r g e given t h e s e r i o u s n a t u r e o f your f r e q u e n t misconduct, which r e s u l t e d...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06684-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 March 2001. 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. A year later, on 12 April 1968, you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of three periods of unauthorized absence (UA) totalling 62 days and breaking...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06601-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 March 2002. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08267-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 April 2011. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval ‘record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07775-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 June 2008. all Material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 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.