Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 04918-99
Original file (04918-99.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 N A W  ANNEX 

WASHINGTON DC  20370-5100 

ELP 
Docket No. 4918-99 
6 October 1999 

Dear - ,. 

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 28 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 
11 November 1974 for four years at age 18.  The  record reflects 
that you served without incident until March  1975 when you began 
a series of four unauthorized absences  (UA) from 3-5 March, 
6 Mareh to 1 April, 7 April to 1 May, and 6-10 May 1975. 

On 15 May  1975, you received nonjudicial punishment  (NJP) for the 
foregoing four periods of UA totalling about 56 days.  Punishment 
imposed consisted of 30 days of correctional custody and 
forfeitures of $150 per month for two months.  However, on the 
date of the NJP, you went UA again and remained absent until you 
were apprehended by civil authorities on 30 January 1976. 

On 23 February 1976, you submitted a request for an undesirable 
discharge for the good of the service to escape trial by court- 
martial for the foregoing 260 day period of UA.  Prior to 
suhmitt.ing  t h i s   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.  On 24 February 1976, the discharge authority approved 
the request and you were discharged under other than honorable 
conditions on 3 March  1976. 

In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all 
potentially mitigating factors such as your youth and immaturity, 
limited education, letters of reference, need for veterans 
medical benefits, and the fact that it has been more than 26 
years since you were discharged.  The Board concluded that these 
factors were insufficient to warrant recharacterization of your 
discharge given your record of an NJP and the fact that you 
requested discharge rather than face trial by court-martial for 
more than eight months 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.  You have provided neither 
probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of your 
application.  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 



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00646-99

    Original file (00646-99.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 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. 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 | 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 | 10104-02

    Original file (10104-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 May 2003. 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 found that your unauthorized absence of 107 days and prior NJP clearly warranted an undesirable discharge.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10366-02

    Original file (10366-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 September 2003. 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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors and contention were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01120-99

    Original file (01120-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 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 found the evidence and materials submitted were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given the serious...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 08472-00

    Original file (08472-00.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2007 | 02916-07

    Original file (02916-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. During the period from 25 to 29 October 1975 you were in an unauthorized absence (UA) status for four days. However, no disciplinary action was taken for this period of UA.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03773-02

    Original file (03773-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 November 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of your repeated misconduct and lengthy period of UA, which also resulted in your request for...

  • 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 | CY2006 | 11040-06

    Original file (11040-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 4 October 1974 at age 21 and served without disciplinary incident...