DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 203704100
TJR
Docket No: 2186-00
25 August 2000
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 15 August 2000.
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.
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 25 June 1974
Your record reflects that on 24 October 1974
at the age of 17.
you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for a three day period
of unauthorized absence (UA) and were awarded restriction for 14
days.
You record also reflects that on 22 January 1975 you received NJP
for a 20 day period of UA.
Shortly thereafter, on 14 February 1975, you
forfeiture of pay.
began a 77 day period of UA that was not terminated until you
were apprehended by civil authorities on 2 May 1975.
However, your
this UA status you were declared a deserter.
record does not contain the disciplinary action taken for this
misconduct.
The punishment imposed was a $200
While in
Your record further reflects that on 3 May 1975 you began a 246
day period of UA that was not terminated until you were
.
You were also
apprehended by U. S. Customs on 4 January 1976.
On 15 March 1974
declared a deserter during this period of UA.
you submitted a written request for an undesirable discharge in
order to avoid trial by court-martial for this 246 day period of
UA.
You record 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.
subsequently granted and your commanding officer was directed to
issue you an other than honorable discharge by reason of the good
of the service.
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.
April 1974 you were so discharged.
Your request was
On 5
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully considered all mitigating factors, such as your youth
and immaturity, good post service conduct, and your contention
that you would like your discharge upgraded.
found the evidence and 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.
extended to you when your request for an undesirable discharge
was approved since, by this action,
Further,
of confinement at hard labor and a punitive discharge.
the Board concluded that you received the benefit of your bargain
with the Marine Corps when your request for a clemency discharge
was granted and should not be permitted-to change your discharge
now.
The Board believed that considerable clemency was
Accordingly, your application has been denied.
However, the Board
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
You are entitled to have the
favorable action cannot be taken.
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
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07732-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 April 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. However, the Board found the evidence and materials submitted were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given the lengthy periods of UA and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08741-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, gitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 November 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. As a result, on 28 February 1975, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10640-09
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 10 February 1975 you submitted a written request for an undesirable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for the foregoing periods of UA totalling 452 days. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01628-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 November 2009. your application, together with all Material submitted in support thereof, your late husband’s naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your late husband's discharge because of the seriousness of his misconduct and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00791-01
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 | CY2010 | 03685-10
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. As a result of the foregoing, on 18 December 1974, you submitted a written request for an other...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00275-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 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. During the period from 26 to 29 November 1974 you were again in a UA status for three days.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01220-00
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. 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 | CY2005 | 00847-05
1552.A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 August 2005. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03027-10
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...