DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TJR
Docket No:
910-05
24 October
2005
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-merniber panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18
October 2005. 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 24 July 1972 at age 18. You served
without disciplinary incident until 18 March 1973, when you began a
period of unauthorized absence (UA) that was not terminated until 4
April 1973. However, the record does not reflect the disciplinary
action taken for this period of UA totalling 17 days. You were in a UA
status again from 7 April to 8 May 1973 and as a result on 30 May 1973
you received nonjudicial punishment for a 31 day period of UA. The
punishment imposed was a $75 forfeiture of pay, correctional custody
for 30 days, and reduction to paygrade E-1. A portion of the
punishment was suspended for three months.
During the period from 2 July 1973 to 26 February 1974 you were UA on
three more occasions for 210 days. On 4 March 1974 you submitted a
written request for an other than honorable discharge in order to
avoid trial by court-martial for foregoing periods of UA and an
absence from your appointed place of duty. Prior to submitting this
request, 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 14
March 1974 your request was granted and your commanding officer was
directed to issue you an other than honorable discharge by reason of the
good of the service. 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 25 March 1974 you were issued
an other than honorable discharge.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully
weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and
assertion that you were told that your discharge would automatically
upgraded six months after your separation. It also considered your
assertion that you went UA because of personal family problems.
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 also resulted in NJP and 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 further 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. Finally, no discharge
is automatically upgraded due solely to the passage of time and/or an
individual’s good behavior after discharge. 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 PFE:
Executive D:
2
di
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00919-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 December 2008. 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 | 06326-06
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 establishthe existence of probable material error or injustice.You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 21 December 1972 at age 17. As a result, on 12 February 1974, you...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09438-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your ‘application on 11 August 2009. It also considered your assertion that you were told that your discharge would be automatically upgraded 90 days after your separation from the Navy. 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 | CY2007 | 09060-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 November 2008. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05233-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 January 2002. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03027-10
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. AS & result, on 19 March 1975, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable discharge in order to avoid trial by court- martial for the three foregoing periods of UA totalling 376 days. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 09640-04
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 3 January 1973 at age 18. However, the record does not reflect...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 01172-07
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 23 May 1972 at age 18. On 19 September 1973 you were again...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02243-09
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 probabie material error or injustice. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 04611-04
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 March 2005. 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...