Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10943-02
Original file (10943-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE  NAVY 

BOARD  FOR  C O R R E C T I O N  O F N A V A L   RECORDS 

2  NAVY  ANNEX 

W A S H I N G T O N   D C   20370-5100 

TJR 
Docket No: 10943-02 
14 October 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 7 October 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 Navy on 24 August 1976 at age 17.  On 5 and 
19 April 1977 you received nonjudicial punishment  (NJP) for 
absence from your appointed place of duty  and  failure to @hey a 
lawful order. 

During the period from 20 ~pril 1977 to 1 June 1978 you were in 
an unauthorized absence (UA) status on five occasions for a total 
of 363 days.  Although the discharge documentation is not in your 
record, it appears that you requested discharge for the good of 
the service to avoid trial by court-martial for the foregoing 
periods of UA.  ~egulations stated that such a request could be 
submitted only if the individual committed an offense that could 
result in a punitive discharge if tried by court-martial. 
Additionally, before requesting discharge, an individual had to 
be advised by military counsel concerning the consequences of 
such a request.  Since you were discharged by reason of good of 
the service, the Board presumed that these proceedings were 
followed in your case.  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.  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. 

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 assertion that you were 
suffering with depression.  Nevertheless, the Board concluded 
these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization 
of your discharge because of your repetitive and lengthy periods 
of UA, which resulted in your request for discharge.  The Board 
believed that considerable clemency was extended to you when your 
request for discharge was approved since, by this action, you 
escaped the possibility of confinement at hard labor and a 
punitive discharge.  The Board also concluded that you received 
the benefit of your bargain with the Navy when your request for 
discharge was granted and should not be permitted to change it 
now.  Further, the Board noted that there is no evidence in the 
record, and you submitted none, to support your contention of 
depression.  Accordingly, 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. 



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 09276-02

    Original file (09276-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors and contention were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of your lengthy period of UA which resulted in your request for discharge. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01425-02

    Original file (01425-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 June 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 | CY1999 | 02552-99

    Original file (02552-99.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 1999. 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 | 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 | CY2002 | 10974-02

    Original file (10974-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 October 2003. On 24 June 1968 you were convicted by SCM of a 15 day period of UA and sentenced to a $65 forfeiture of pay and confinement at hard labor for 30 days. 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 | CY2013 | NR8333 13

    Original file (NR8333 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 3 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 | CY2006 | 05775-06

    Original file (05775-06.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 8 March 1977 at age 17. On 4 August 1978 your request was granted...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00267-01

    Original file (00267-01.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. 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. 1978 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...

  • 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 | 06291-02

    Original file (06291-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 January 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. Your military record shows that you submitted a written request for a discharge under other than honorable conditions in order to avoid trial by...