DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
SMW
Docket No: 10044-06
5 April 2007
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 4 April 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.
On 5 November 1964 you enlisted in the Marine Corps at age 17
with parental consent. You then served without incident for
about a year. However, on 10 November 1965 you received
nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for a brief period of unauthorized
absence (UA). On 16 December 1965 you began a period of UA and
were apprehended by civil authorities on 27 December 1965 on
charges of reckless driving, drunk driving, driving without a
license, and operating a vehicle without the owner's permission.
You were subsequently convicted by civil courts on 28 January and
1 March 1966 of reckless driving, drunken driving, and operating
a vehicle without the owner's permission. The sentences included
a fine, suspended confinement and three years of probation. On
2 March 1966, about 76 days later, the UA ended after you were
returned to your command. Apparently, no disciplinary action was
taken for the 76-day period of UA.
During the period from 15 October 1966 to 27 August 1967, while
at a staging battalion, you were in a UA and desertion status on
nine occasions totaling about 100 days. on 24 January 1968 you
were convicted by general court-martial (GCM) of two instances of
UA totaling about two days, four instances of desertion totaling
about 79 days, two instances of failure to obey a lawful order,
two instances of escape from lawful confinement, and breaking
restriction. The court sentenced you to confinement at hard
labor (CHL), forfeitures of all pay and allowances, and a
dishonorable discharge (DD). Your request for clemency and
restoration to duty was subsequently denied. During review, the
CHL was reduced and the DD was mitigated to a bad conduct
discharge (BCD). On 17 April 1969 you waived the right to
request restoration to duty and requested execution of the BCD.
On 3 July 1969 you were so discharged.
The Board, in its review of your entire record, carefully
considered all mitigating factors, such as your youth. The Board
also considered your contentions that you should receive amnesty
because you did not want to fight in the Vietnam conflict, and
were a sole surviving son. Nevertheless, the Board found that
these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization
of your discharge due to the seriousness of your repetitive
misconduct. Regarding your contentions, amnesty is not
applicable in your case, and even though you were a sole
surviving son, you voluntarily enlisted at the age of 17 with
parental consent. 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,
Ww. P
Executive Dirac
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10740-07
A three-member panel jof the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in dxecutive session, considered your application on 20 August 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. The Board also concluded that you received the benefit of your bargain with the Marine Corps when your request for discharge was granted and you...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10546-06
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 establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.On 7 October 1965 you enlisted in the Marine Corps at age 17 with parental consent. On 9 February...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00712-08
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 9 April 1964, you were returned to military authorities after being in a UA status for about 120 days. 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 | CY2006 | 10060-06
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 April 2007. 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 February 1963 your CO initiated administrative separation action by reason of unfitness, and recommended an undesirable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063136C070421
The Board considered the following evidence: He was sentenced to a reduction to pay grade E-1, a forfeiture of $60 pay per month for 6 months and confinement at hard labor (CHL) for 6 months. On 17 August 1966, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness with a discharge UOTHC.
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00347-99
You were sentenced to confinement at hard labor for four months, forfeitures of $55 per month for four months and a bad conduct discharge. Thereafter, the commanding officer recommended an You were so discharged on An enlisted The Chief of Naval The board concluded The Board noted your contentions that you had an NJPs and convictions by four summary courts-martial and a In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors such as your youth and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02770-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 November 2002. 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. April 1945 you received CM on two occasions for missing muster, On 22 March 1945 the DD was mitigated to a bad conduct On 3 February 1945 the confinement You were...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11921-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 August 2011. You were notified of pending administrative discharge processing with an other than honorable (OTH) discharge due to misconduct. 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 | CY2005 | 00847-05
1552.A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 August 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.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08594-07
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.On 23 March 1984, you enlisted in the Navy at age 22. On 11 March 1985, you began another UA that...