Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01699-01
Original file (01699-01.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: 1699-01
9 October 2001

Dear

This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title
States Code, Section 1552.

  10, United

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 2 October 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 
nava.l 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 26 November
1973 at the age of 18.
Your record reflects that on 25 April
1974 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for a three day
period of unauthorized absence (UA) and were awarded a reduction
in rank.

Your record also reflects that on 18 February 1976 you were
convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of two periods of UA
totalling 222 days.
You were sentenced to confinement at hard
labor for 45 days and a reduction in rank.
on 17 November 1976 you received NJP for absence from your
appointed place of duty and larceny.
you received NJP for failure to go to your appointed place of
duty and two periods of absence from your appointed place of
duty.

On 10 and 16 November 1977

On 26 May and again

On 28 February 1978 you submitted a written request for an
undesirable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial
for absence from your appointed place of duty, failure to go to
making a false official statement,
your appointed place of duty,
Your record
and wrongful possession of a sick-in-quarters chit.
shows that 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.
On 21 March 1978 you
discharge authority denied this request.
resubmitted the foregoing request and further cited personal and
family problems in support of your request for an immediate
discharge.
Subsequently, your request was granted and your
commanding officer was directed to issue you an other than
honorable discharge by reason of the good of the service.

However, on 13 March 1978, the

As a
result of this action, you were spared the stigma of a  

court-

martial conviction and the potential penalties of a punitive
discharge and confinement at hard labor.
were issued an other than honorable discharge.

On 27 April 1978 you

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully considered all mitigating factors, such as your youth
and immaturity, and your contentions that you served honorably
for nearly five years and that you did not realize the
consequences of an other than honorable discharge.
Board found the evidence and materials submitted were not
sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given
the seriousness of your repetitive misconduct, especially the
lengthy periods of UA, and your request for discharge to avoid
trial for such
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.
been denied.

Accordingly, your application has

offenses.

However, the

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.

2

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 | CY2013 | NR4986-13

    Original file (NR4986-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 January 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. As a result of this action, you were spared the stigma of a court-martial conviction and the potential penalties of a punitive discharge...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05223-00

    Original file (05223-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 January 2001. Board found the evidence and materials submitted were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given the lengthy periods of UA and your request for discharge to avoid trial for these periods of UA. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...

  • 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 | CY2013 | NR8164 13

    Original file (NR8164 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 September 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00945-01

    Original file (00945-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A'three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 July 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. discharged.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12305-09

    Original file (12305-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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. However, on 9 June 1978, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06774-10

    Original file (06774-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 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. As a result, on 12 August 1980, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10943-02

    Original file (10943-02.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. Because you requested discharge in lieu of trial, you received the benefit of your bargain when you were discharged and not tried by court-martial, and on 25 August 1978 you received an other than honorable discharge. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00975-01

    Original file (00975-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your applicatiofi on 10 July 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 1977 you were so discharged. 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 | 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.