DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TUR .
Docket No: 6848-09
10 June 2010
hn
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.
“BR three-member panei of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 8 June 2010. The names and votes of the members
of the panel 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 this Board. Documentary material considered by
the Board consisted of your application, together with ali
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 15 September 1969 at age 20
and served without disciplinary incident until 14 August 1970,
when you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for misbehavior as
a sentinel. The punishment imposed was a $50 forfeiture of pay,
restriction for 14 days, and reduction to paygrade E-1.
On 24 March 1971 you received NIP for absence from your appointed
place of duty. Shortly thereafter, on 31 March 1971, you were
convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of larceny of government
property valued at $60 and wrongful deposit of U.S. mail. On 28
September 1971 you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM)
of larceny of $80, the property of another Marine. You were
sentenced to confinement at hard labor for three months and a bad
conduct discharge (BCD). On 17 April 1972 you submitted a
written request for restoration to duty and clemency, however, on
30 June 1972, this request for denied. Subsequently, the BCD was
approved at all levels of review, and on 7 November 1972, you
were issued a BCD.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth, post service conduct, and desire to upgrade your
discharge. It also considered your explanation for your offenses
of larceny. Nevertheless, these factors were not sufficient to
warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of the
seriousness of your repetitive misconduct. Accordingly, your
application has been denied.
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,
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06848-09
“BR three-member panei of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 June 2010. On 28 September 1971 you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of larceny of $80, the property of another Marine. 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 | CY2009 | 06450-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 May 2010. 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 found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your record of two NJP’s...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 13226-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 September 2010. 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 ADB found that you committed misconduct and recommended that you be separated with an OTH discharge.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01069-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 September 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01189-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 September 2008. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11430-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 August 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with ail material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. On 4 April 1972, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable (OTH) discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR7912 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 August 2014. 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 6 July 1972 you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) ' of a 570 day period of UA and sentenced to confinement at hard labor for four...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01418-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 October 2010. 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 25 June 1982 you began a period of UA that was not terminated until you were apprehended by civil authorities.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01918-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of GLOn, of your United i Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 November 2008. Documentary material considered by the Boar your application, together with all material submit thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes and policies. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and your letters of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07848-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 May 2008. 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 5 January 1973, you were counseled regarding your misconduct and warned that further infractions could result in administrative separation.