DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
B O A R D FOR C O R R E C T I O N O F N A V A L RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TJR
Docket No: 10974-02
15 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 Marine Corps on 26 May 1967 at age 17. You
served without disciplinary incident until 4 March 1978 when you
were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of an 11 day period
of unauthorized absence (UA). %u were sentdanced to a $30
forfeiture of pay and confinement at hard labor for 30 days. 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. Shortly thereafter, on 18 July 1968, you
received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for being out of bounds and
were awarded a $30 forfeiture of pay. On 13 November 1968 you
were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of two periods of
UA totalling 27 days and breaking restriction. You were
sentenced to confinement at hard labor for three months and a
$225 forfeiture of pay.
On 11 February 1971 YOU were apprehendpd h a civil authnrities a n d
On 27 February 1969 you began another peri d of UA, and on 21
November 1970, while in a UA status, you w re convicted by civil
authorities of larceny and sentenced to pr bation for two years.
subsequently returned to military custody. On 5 April 1971 you
submitted a written request for an other than honorable discharge
in order to avoid trial by court-martial for the foregoing period
of UA totalling 719 days. Prior to submitting this request for
discharge, you conferred with a qualified military lawyer, were
advised of your rights, and warned of the probable adverse
consequences of accepting such a discharge. On 23 April 1971
your request for discharge was granted and on 29 April 1971 you
received an other than honorable discharge in lieu of trial by
court-martial. 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 are now in
need of veterans' benefits. Nevertheless, the Board concluded
these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization
of your discharge because of your frequent misconduct, which
resulted in five disciplinary actions, and your lengthy period 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 Marine Corps when your
request for discharge was granted and should not be permitted to
change it now. 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.
Sincerely,
Executive D
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06684-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 March 2001. 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. A year later, on 12 April 1968, you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of three periods of unauthorized absence (UA) totalling 62 days and breaking...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06601-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 March 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06606-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 March 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 04903-01
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 were sentenced to confinement at hard labor On 30 January 1970 you were convicted by SPCM of a 99 day period of UA and were sentenced to confinement at hard labor for a month, restriction for a month, and an $80 forfeiture of pay. submitted a written request for an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10677-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval - Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 August 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. 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 | 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 | CY1999 | 01099-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Na-1 Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 July 1999. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your husband's naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. On 23 April 1969 the commanding officer recommended your husband be issued an undesirable discharge by reason of unfitness.