Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 00780-03
Original file (00780-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE  NAVY 

BOARD  F O R C O R R E C T I O N   O F   NAVAL  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  

FC 
Docket No: 00780-03 
24 July 2003 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your 
naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10 of the 
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 16 July 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, and applicable statutes, regulations and 
policies.  The Board was unable to obtain your official record, 
and conducted its review based on the copies of the record that 
you submitted. 

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire 
record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was 
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material 
error or injustice. 

The Board found that you enlisted in the Marine Corps on 15 June 
1967, after four years of active service in the Navy.  During the 
period 7 December 1968 through 3 December 1969, you received 
three nonjudicial punishments  (NJPs) for a nine-day period of 
unauthorized absence, wearing an improper uniform, wrongful 
possession of an identification card with the intent to deceive, 
wrongful possession of a liberty card, and drunk and disorderly 
conduct. 

On 23 March 1970 you were convicted in civil court of drug 
possession, and sentenced to 53 days of confinement that had 
already been served.  On 5 June 1970 the commanding officer 
recommended an undesirable discharge by reason of unfitness due 
to the civil conviction.  However, the Irrunediate superior  in the 

chain of command  (ISIC) returned the request for further 
documentation.  On 24 July 1970 you were convicted by summary 
court martial  (SCM) of a 49-day period of unauthorized absence 
and sentenced to one month of confinement at hard labor and a 
reduction in paygrade to E-1.  On 31 August 1970 the commanding 
officer again recommended an undesirable discharge by reason of 
unfitness due to civil conviction.  On 14 September 1970 the 
staff judge advocate returned the request for discharge for 
further documentation of your civil conviction. 

On 6 November 1970 you were again notified of administrative 
separation processing at which time you elected to retain all 
your rights.  On 1 December 1970 your commanding officer 
recommended an undesirable discharge by reason of unfitness due 
to civil conviction.  On 16 December 1970, an administrative 
discharge board  (ADB) recommended a general discharge by reason 
of unfitness due to the civil conviction.  On 30 December 1970 
the staff judge advocate determined that the case was sufficient 
in law and fact.  On 11 January 1971 the separation authority 
directed a general discharge and on 15 January 1970 you were so 
discharged. 

In its review of your case, the Board carefully weighed all 
potentially mitigating factors such as your prior honorable 
service, combat service in Vietnam, and the length of time that 
has passed since you were discharged from the Marine Corps. The 
Board specifically noted that you were awarded the Purple Heart 
and Combat Action Ribbon for your service in Vietnam.  However, 
the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to 
warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your 
misconduct that resulted in three NJPs, a SCM conviction for a 
lengthy period of unauthorized absence, and the civil conviction 
for drug possession.  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, 



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 03695-03

    Original file (03695-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 October 2003. On 30 June 1959 an administrative discharge board (ADB) recommended that you be retained in the Marine Corps. When you were informed that administrative separation action had been initiated due to the civil conviction, you again elected to retain all of your procedural rights.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10329-02

    Original file (10329-02.pdf) 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. On 11 May and again on 16 July 1959 you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of a one day period of unauthorized absence (UA), failure to obey a lawful order, absence from your appointed place of duty, resisting arrest, and breach of the peace. The Board, in its review of your...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 01986-03

    Original file (01986-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. However, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your civil conviction of a serious offense. 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 | CY2002 | 10441-02

    Original file (10441-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 January 2003. After review by the discharge authority, the recommendation for separation was approved and on 14 August 1970 you received an undesirable discharge by reason of misconduct due to civil conviction. 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 | 07708-01

    Original file (07708-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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. Given all the circumstances of your case, the Board concluded your discharge, narrative reason for separation, and reenlistment code were proper and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07004-02

    Original file (07004-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 April 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. 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 | 05434-01

    Original file (05434-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Your military record shows that on 10 February 1970 you submitted a written request for an undesirable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for an unauthorized absence of nine days, two instances of willful disobedience of a lawful order, two instances of disrespect, theft of a jeep, assault, and possession of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00632-02

    Original file (00632-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 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. CNP further directed that you be advised that you were being placed in a probationary status for a period of 12 months and that the CO was authorized to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 01323-03

    Original file (01323-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 July 2003. However, on 3 October 1985 you were dropped from this counseling due to your non-amenability to treatment. 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 | 08916-02

    Original file (08916-02.pdf) 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. However, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your request for discharge to avoid trial for unauthorized absences totalling more than five months, and your total period of absence of about nine months. Consequently, when...