Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 01307-04
Original file (01307-04.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
                  DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
         BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
                                                                        FC
                                                                                                   Docket No: 1307-04
                                                                                                   2 August 2004





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 28 July 2004. 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 that the evidence submitted was insufficient to e s ta bl ish the existence of probable material
The Board found that you enlisted in the Marine Corps on 16 August 1983 at age 17. You served without incident until 2 November 1984, when you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for stealing a pair of sunglasses and cap valued at $15.50 from the Marine Corps Exchange. You were awarded a forfeiture of pay. On 17 January 1985 you received a second NJP for unauthorized absence (UA) while in a restricted status. You were awarded a forfeiture of pay, restriction, and extra duty. On 5 October 1985 you were convicted by summary court martial (SCM) of unlawful entry and stealing $403.75 from a hotel in Okinawa. You were sentenced to a forfeiture of pay, 30 days of confinement at hard labor, and a reduction to paygrade E-1. On 26 December 1985 you received a third NJP for being UA from your appointed place of duty. You were awarded a forfeiture of pay, restriction, and extra duty. The restriction and extra duty were suspended for three months.









On 18 February 1986 you requested an other than honorable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for a brief period of UA, missing movement, and breaking restriction. Prior to submitting this request for discharge, you conferred with a qualified military lawyer at which time you were advised of your rights and warned of the probable adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge. On 18 March 1986 the separation authority approved your request and the commanding officer was directed to issue you an other than honorable discharge by reason of good of the service 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. On 1 April 1986 you received an other than honorable discharge.
In its review of your case, the Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors such as your youth, the length of time that has passed since you were discharged from the Marine Corps, and your apparent excellent post service adjustment. However, the Board concluded that those factors were not sufficient to warrant recharcterization of your discharge because of your request for discharge to avoid trial by court martial and the other misconduct that resulted in three NJPs and a conviction by a SCM. The Board concluded that you received the benefit of your bargain 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,







W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00945-01

    Original file (00945-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A'three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 July 2001. 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. discharged.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05149-01

    Original file (05149-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 January 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Your record also reflects that on 9 December 1974 you submitted a written request for an undesirable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for two periods of UA totalling four days, absence from your...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03658-09

    Original file (03658-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 January 2010. As a result of this action on 5 February 1986 you were discharged under other than honorable conditions. 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 | 04729-00

    Original file (04729-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 September 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. On 30 May The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully considered all mitigating factors, such as your youth and immaturity, and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 02052-04

    Original file (02052-04.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 that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material o ro ~r irru~ticw,The Board found that you enlisted in the Marine Corps on 17 June 1986 at age 19. On 5 May 1988 you...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08603-06

    Original file (08603-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 July 2007. On 1 May 1987 your request for discharge was granted, and on 11 May 1987 you received an other than honorable discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. 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 | 02045-00

    Original file (02045-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 August 2000. 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. The punishment imposed was Your record further reflects that during the period from 2 May to 14 July 1982 you were in a UA status on three occasions for a total of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01386-01

    Original file (01386-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 August 2001. 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 the evidence and materials submitted were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10768-10

    Original file (10768-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    BR three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 June 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. On 3 September 1985, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable (OTH) discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 07460-98

    Original file (07460-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 April 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. Given all the circumstances of your case the.Board concluded your discharge was proper as issued and no change is warranted.