DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TIR
Docket No: 3706-07
11 February 2008
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 7 February 2008. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of
together with all material submitted in support
regulations,
Board.
your application,
thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes,
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 Navy on 29 September 1971 at age 19 and
served for nearly six months without disciplinary infraction.
However, during the period from 31 March to 14 November 1972 you
were in an unauthorized absence (UA) status on four occasions.
You were also hospitalized during this period for possible
Situational reaction and shock. After undergoing psychiatric
evaluations you were diagnosed with anxiety neurosis and an
immature personality disorder.
On 20 November 1972 you submitted a written request for an
undesirable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial
for the foregoing periods of UA totalling 220 days, missing the
movement of your ship, and breaking restriction. Prior to
submitting this request for discharge, you conferred with a
qualified military lawyer, were advised of your rights, and
warned of the probable adverse consequences of accepting such a
discharge. About a month later, on 19 December 1972, you
received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for absence from your
appointed place of duty and were awarded extra duty for four
days. On 12 April 1973 you received NUP for a 91 day period of
UA and absence from your appointed place of duty. The punishment
imposed was correctional custody for 30 days and a reduction in
paygrade.
Subsequently, your request for discharge was granted, and on 11
May 1973 you received an undesirable discharge in lieu of trial
by court-martial. As a result, you were spared the stigma of a
court-martial conviction and the potential penalties of a
punitive discharge and confinement at hard labor.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth and your assertion that you are unable to obtain
employment or medical assistance because of your discharge. It
also considered your assertion of a conflict of interest in
regards to your NJPs. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these
factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your
discharge because of the seriousness of your repetitive
misconduct and lengthy periods of UA, which also resulted in 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
also concluded that you received the benefit of your bargain with
the Navy when your request for discharge was granted and should
not be permitted to change it now. Finally, there is no evidence
in the record, and you submitted none, to support your assertion
of a conflict of interest. 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 Di
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 | 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 | CY2009 | 03390-09
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 probable material error or injustice. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10640-09
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. On 10 February 1975 you submitted a written request for an undesirable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for the foregoing periods of UA totalling 452 days. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03632-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 February 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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of the seriousness of...
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 | CY2008 | 06969-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 May 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. 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 | 08965-06
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 24 January 1972 you enlisted in the Navy at age 19. Furthermore, the Board believed that...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05652-07
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 8 February 1971 at age 20. Subsequently, your request for...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09812-06
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. On 4 June 1975 your request for an undesirable discharge was approved by the separation authority. 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.