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
ELP
Docket No. 2552-99
3 September 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 1 September 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 that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice.
The Board found that you enlisted in the Marine Corps on
24 January 1977 for four years at age 20. The record reflects
that you were married at the time of your enlistment. You were
advanced to LCPL (E-3) on 1 June 1977.
Documentation you provided in support of your application shows
that on 19 October 1978 your wife was granted a divorce and was
awarded custody of your two minor children, a daughter and son.
The record reflects that on 15 December 1978, you were rep~rted
in an unauthorized absence (UA) status, and you remained absent
until your surrendered to military authorities on 30 October
1979.
On 19 November 1979 you submitted a request for an undesirable
discharge for the good of the service to escape trial by court-
martial for the foregoing 319 day period of UA. 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. In a separate statement, you said that you did not
want to return to duty and would request a bad conduct discharge
if referred to trial. You asserted that the reason you did not
want to return to duty was because you "could not handle all of
the unnecessary hassle of military life.ll You stated that you
would rather be home where you could make a better living for
your children. On 7 December 1979, the discharge authority
approved the request and you were discharged under other than
honorable conditions on 14 December 1979.
In its review of your application, the Board carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors such as your limited
education, the 23 months of unblemished service prior to your UA,
and the fact that it has been nearly 20 years since you were
discharged. The Board noted the documentation submitted in
support of your application, which includes a statement from your
current wife, the divorce decree, and court documents concerning
the recent adoption of a son. The Board also noted your
contentions that you went UA because you were having marital
problems, your wife left with your daughter and returned home to
her parents, her parents would not allow you to see your wife or
daughter, and that during your period of UA you tried to get your
family back. The Board concluded that the foregoing factors and
contentions were insufficient to warrant recharacterization of
your discharge given the fact that you accepted discharge rather
than face trial by court-martial for the prolonged period of UA
of more than 10 months. While the Board is always sympathetic to
individuals with family problems, the Board was not convinced
that the circumstances justified such an extensive period of UA
or prevented you from returning to military jurisdiction earlier
than you did. Further, the Board noted that in the statement you
made in conjunction with the request for discharge, you did not
mention your divorce or any marital problems. Your recent
adoption is commendable but does not provide a valid basis for
recharacterizin~ your service. The Eoard 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 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 P F E I F F E R
Executive Director
Copy to:
The American Legion
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072376C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a general discharge. He enlisted at age 17 on 4 November 1975, for a period of 3 years, training as an infantry indirect fire crewman and assignment to Fort Carson.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 08472-00
A three—member panel for the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 May 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. The Board concluded that the foregoing factors and contention were insufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your record of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01042-01
Prior to submitting this On 27 January 1983, the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) denied your request for an upgrade of your discharge. The Board concluded that the foregoing factors and contentions were insufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your record of an NJP and the fact you accepted discharge rather than face trial by court-martial for more than nine months of UA. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02131-01
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 28 June 1979 you During the period from 22 July 1979 to 26 August 1980 you were in a UA status on five occasions for a total of 272 days. materials submitted were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your lengthy periods of UA, and your request for...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01211-01
Your A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, 25 July 2001. reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. However, you continued to serve and were advanced to LCPL You reported to duty in Vietnam on 5 October 1968. On 28 August 1970 the discharge authority directed You were Prior to submitting this request court- The record further reflects that on 20 June 1977 the...
USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00164
Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copies of DD Form 214 (3) Copies from service record (20pgs) Copy of Joint Duty Recommendation. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (D and E).In the applicant’s issues 1 and 2, the Board acknowledged the problems that his wife was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150003668
Based on this decision, the election of the applicant's daughter as his beneficiary on the DD Form 1883 was invalid. n. The Board in the in paragraph 4 of the "Discussion and Conclusions" area of the cited case, states: "The evidence of the record fails to show that the U.S. Army required the applicant to provide proof that the child listed on the DD Form 1883 was eligible for the RCSBP based upon being enrolled in full -time education, as required by the applicable regulatory guidance." 5...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 08057-98
to your accident, 21 June to 7 July and 20 July to 5 August 1978. The second NJP was for the two periods of UA prior The first was for two periods of Punishment On 15 December 1978, CMC directed your transfer to the Marine Corps Barracks at Camp Pendleton, CA for six months of limited duty. The record also reflects that you A $50 forfeiture was On 18 June 1979 a medical board found you unfit for full duty and opined that this status would not change with further treatment.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071573C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. There is no evidence in the available records to show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. Chapter 10 of the regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive...
USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00407
MD01-00407 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010212, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Issues 1. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (D and E).The marital problems experienced by the applicant during his second enlistment are...