Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01378-01
Original file (01378-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

TJR
Docket No: 1378-01
16 August 2001

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 14 August 2001.
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.

Your allegations of error and

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 11 July 1972
at the age of 18.
Your record reflects that on 5 February 1973
you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for a four day period
of unauthorized absence (UA).
forfeiture of pay and restriction for seven days.
1973 you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of a 75
day period of UA and were sentenced to confinement at hard labor
for two months and a $400 forfeiture of pay.
on 20 November 1973, you received NJP for disrespect and were
awarded a $50 forfeiture of pay.

The punishment imposed was a $125

Shortly thereafter,

On 5 September

Your record further reflects that on 21 November 1973 you began a
111 day period of UA that was not terminated until you were
apprehended on 12 March 1974.
written request for an undesirable discharge in order to avoid
trial by court-martial for the foregoing period of UA.
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

On 20 March 1974 you submitted a

Prior to

commanding officer was directed to issue you an other than
honorable discharge for the good of the service.
this action, you were spared the stigma of a court-martial
conviction and the potential penalties of a punitive discharge
On 29 March 1974 you were so
and confinement at hard labor.
discharged.

As a result of

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 were unfairly treated
and that you did not understand the long term effects of an other
However, the Board found the evidence
than honorable discharge.
and materials submitted were not sufficient to warrant
recharacterization of your discharge given your repetitive
misconduct, lengthy and frequent periods of UA, and your request
for discharge to avoid trial for a 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,
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
Finally, the
and you should not be permitted to change it now.
Board noted that there is no evidence in the record, and you
submitted none, to support your contention of unfair treatment.
Accordingly, your application has been denied.

you escaped the possibility

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

2



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05233-01

    Original file (05233-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 January 2002. 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...

  • 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 | CY2001 | 04729-00

    Original file (04729-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 September 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. On 30 May The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully considered all mitigating factors, such as your youth and immaturity, and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08125-01

    Original file (08125-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 May 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. On 12 April 1973 you received NJP for two periods of absence from your appointed place of duty, disobedience, and a five day period of UA. November 1976, you submitted a written request for an undesirable discharge in order...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09060-07

    Original file (09060-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 November 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 | CY2002 | 03542-02

    Original file (03542-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 August 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. 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 | CY2010 | 02739-10

    Original file (02739-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 January 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. As a result, on 17 October 1974, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03027-10

    Original file (03027-10.pdf) 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. AS & result, on 19 March 1975, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable discharge in order to avoid trial by court- martial for the three foregoing periods of UA totalling 376 days. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is...

  • 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 | CY2009 | 02408-09

    Original file (02408-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 January 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 concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of your misconduct...