Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05223-00
Original file (05223-00.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: 5223-00
31 January 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 23 January 2001.
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 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 5 December
1974 at the age of 17.
again on 19 September 1975 you received nonjudicial punishment
(NJP) for two specifications of misbehavior as sentinel. On 17
August and 6 October 1976 you received NJP for a four day period
of unauthorized absence (UA) and two periods absence from your
appointed place of duty.

Your record reflects that on 15 July and

Your record further reflects that on 6 January 1977 you received
another NJP for absence from your appointed place of duty and
were awarded restriction and extra duty for 14 days and a $97
forfeiture of pay.
UA that was not terminated until 2 May 1977.
began a 264 day period of UA that was not terminated until 24
January 1978.
written request for an undesirable discharge in order to avoid
trial by court-martial for the foregoing two periods of UA
totalling 292 days.
Your 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

On 4 April 1975 you began a 28 day period of
On 5 May 1977 you

Subsequently, on 27 January 1978, you submitted a

probable adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge.
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.
the stigma of a court-martial conviction and the potential
penalties of a punitive discharge and confinement at hard labor.
On 21 February 1978 you were so discharged.

As a result of this action, you were spared

However,  the

The Board believed that

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully considered all mitigating factors, such as your youth
and immaturity, and good post service conduct.
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.
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.
The Board also noted that
there is no evidence in the record, and you submitted none, to
support your contention.
denied.

Accordingly, your application has been

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 | 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 | CY2013 | NR6920 13

    Original file (NR6920 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 July 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. It appears that you requested discharge for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial for the latter period of UA totalling 78 days.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 05287 11

    Original file (05287 11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 February 2012. 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 | CY2007 | 06912-07

    Original file (06912-07.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.On 10 April 1973, you enlisted in the Marine Corps at age 17 with parental consent. On 23 May 1977,...

  • 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 | CY2008 | 05980-08

    Original file (05980-08.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 February 2009. 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 15 June 1978, you requested an OTH discharge for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial for the 298 day period of UA.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 01331-12

    Original file (01331-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, Sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 October 2012. 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, your request for discharge was denied on 12 January 1977.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07827-06

    Original file (07827-06.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 28 January 1977 at age 26. Nevertheless, the Board concluded...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06473-09

    Original file (06473-09.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 June 2010. As a result, on 21 March 1978, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for the foregoing three periods of UA totalling 31 days and desertion resulting from a 127 day period of UA. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04421-07

    Original file (04421-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 January 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...