DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD F O R C O R R E C T I O N O F N A V A L R E C O R D S
2 N A V Y A N N E X
W A S H I N G T O N D C 2 0 3 7 0 - 5 1 0 0
TJR
Docket No: 9384-02
14 August 2003
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 12 August 2003. 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.
You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 9 August 1979 at age 17. You
served nearly a year without disciplinary incident, but on 9 July
1980, you received nanjudicial punishment (NJP) for possession of
marijuana. The punishment imposed was a $400 forfeiture of'pay,
restriction and extra duty for 30 days, and a reduction to
paygrade E-1, which was suspended for six months.
On 17 March 1981 you were convicted by special court-martial
(SPCM) of absence from your appointed place of duty, forgery, and
theft. You were sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 30
days, reduction to paygrade E-1, a $334 forfeiture of pay, and a
bad conduct discharge (BCD). On 24 April 1981 the convening
authority dismissed the charge of absence from your appointed
place of duty, but otherwise approved the findings and sentence.
You received NJP on 22 February 1992 for a 17 period of
unauthorized absence (UA) and were awarded restriction and extra
duty for 4 5 days and a $550 forfeiture of pay.
Your records contains a memorandum which notes that you were in a
UA status from 22 February to 26 October 1982, a total of 246
days. However, the record does not reflect that any disciplinary
action was taken for this period of UA. On 29 October 1982 your
commanding officer recommended you be separated with the adjudged
BCD. This recommendation stated, in part, as follows:
Return of deserter .... (Member) tried, convicted, and
awarded a BCD by SPCM on 17 March 1981, which is currently
under appeal .... request transfer of Member pending BCD, and
further disciplinary action resulting from the deserter
status.
On 6 December 1982 you were convicted by SPCM of a three day
period of UA and sentenced to a $1,528 forfeiture of pay and
confinement at hard labor for four months, a portion of which was
suspended for six months.
In January 1983 you submitted a written request for immediate
execution of the BCD, which stated, in part, as follows:
I don't wish to stay in the military because I'm not able to
cope with military life. I tried, but it's just not me.
During the period from 28 January 1983 to 6 July 1984, while you
were on appellate leave, the BCD was approved at all levels of
review, and on 6 July 1984 you were so discharged.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth and immaturity and your contention that you would like
your discharge upgraded so that you could obtain employment.
Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors and your
contention were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of
your discharge because of the seriousness of your repetitive
misconduct, and the very lengthy period of UA for which no
d ; s f l i r l i n a r v action was t a k m . Acchrdinqly, your application has
been denied.
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,
Executive Di
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07792-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 May 2002. 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 | CY2001 | 07702-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 May 2002. 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, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and immaturity, and your...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07707-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 May 2002. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07488-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 April 2002. Your record reflects that on 21 August 1982 you began a period of unauthorized absence (UA) that was not terminated until you were apprehended by civil authorities on 9 April 1985. 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 | CY2002 | 10343-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 September 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. On 26 October 1966 you were convicted by SPCM of a 67 day period of UA and were sentenced to confinement at hard labor for six months, a $342...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 00573-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 November 2007. 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 | CY2001 | 08556-01
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 20 October 1960 you submitted a written request for immediate execution of the BCD. 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 | CY2001 | 03764-01
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. you& appointed place of duty On 25 October 1983 vou received was On 15 November 1983 the BCD was to be executed, Subsequently, the suspension of the forfeitures and BCD were vacated. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden‘is...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03450-01
You were sentenced On 27 July 1983 you were again convicted by paygrade E-2, and a $1,500 The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and immaturity, of UA do not justify a BCD. factors and contention were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of your frequent and lengthy periods of UA, which resulted in three court-martial Given the circumstances of your case, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02379-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 October 2002. 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. January 1981 you...