DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TIR
Docket No: 8600-06
17 July 2007
Dearie
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 17 July 2007. 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 17 June 1966 at age 19. You
served for one year without disciplinary incident, but on 6 June
and again on 22 August 1967 you received nonjudicial punishment
(NUP) for two periods of unauthorized absence (UA) totalling four
days. On 5 December 1968 you received NUP for failure to obey a
lawful order and failure to go to your appointed place of duty.
On 21 February and 2 March 1969 you received NUP for failure to
obey a lawful order and disobedience. On 7 May 1969 you were
convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of breaking restriction
and sentenced to reduction to paygrade E-1 and hard labor for 30
days. About a month later, on 3 June 1969, you were convicted by
special court-martial (SPCM) of six specifications of wrongful
use of marijuana. You were sentenced to confinement at hard
labor for six months, a $438 forfeiture of pay, and a bad conduct
discharge (BCD), all of which was remitted. Nevertheless, on 17
November 1969 you received your sixth NUP for failure to obey a
lawful order and were awarded restriction and extra duty for 14
days.
Your record of promotion, reduction, and examination for
promotion reflect that on 16 December 1966 you were promoted to
private first class (PFC)/(E-2). On 16 February 1968 you
received a probationary promotion to lance corporal (LCPL) /(E-3)
and on 5 March 1969 that promotion was made permanent. It also
reflects that as a result of the 7 May 1969 SCM sentence you were
reduced in rank to private (PVT)/(E-1). The record further
reflects that on 1 January 1970 you were again promoted to the
rank of PFC/(E-2).
Subsequently, on 21 January 1970, while serving in paygrade E-2,
you were released from active duty under honorable conditions.
On 17 August 1972, upon completion of your required obligated
service, you were issued a general 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 would like restoration to the
rank of corporal (CPL)/(E-4). Nevertheless, the Board concluded
these factors were not sufficient to warrant restoration in rank
because of your repetitive misconduct, which resulted in six NJPs
and two court-martial convictions. Finally, the Board noted that
there is no evidence in the record, and you submitted none, to
support your assertion of promotion to LCPL/(E-4). 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 or
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09236-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 November 2008. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and assertions that your misconduct and discharge were the result of you being under the influence of alcohol, and that you were not offered treatment for your alcohol abuse. Consequently, when applying for a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00095-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 April 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 | CY2007 | 11339-07
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. On 15 November 1968 you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of three periods of UA totalling 64 days and sentenced to confinement at hard labor for three months. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07529-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 May 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. About four months later, on 2 November 1984, you were convicted by SPCM of a 48 day period of UA and sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 63...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10989-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval’ Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 July 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 | CY2009 | 04389-09
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all Material submitted in support thereof, your late husband’s naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. About six months later, on 8 January 1969, he received NUP for a nine day period of UA. 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 | CY2010 | 01415-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 October 2010. 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 25 June 1973 you received NUP for six periods of absence from your appointed place of duty and a one day period of UA.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07490-09
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. The record does not reflect the disciplinary action taken, if any, for this 56 day period of UA. 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 | CY2008 | 08034-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 June 2009. 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. About six months later, on 30 December 1966 you received NUP for a four day period of unauthorized absence (UA) and disorderly conduct.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08138-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 October 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...