Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03761-07
Original file (03761-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

TJIR
Docket No: 3761-07

° 15 February 2008

 

WHS 1S in FeéTersence 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 12 February 2008. 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 11 January 1968 at age 19 and
served without disciplinary incident until 19 November 1969, when
you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for absence from your

appointed place of duty.

On 1 February 1970 you began a period of unauthorized absence
(UA) that was not terminated until 26 April 1970. During this
period you were declared a deserter. However, no disciplinary
action is reflected in the record for this misconduct. About a
month later, on 30 May 1970 you began yet another period of UA
that was not terminated until you were apprehended by civil
authorities on 6 October 1970 and held in confinement on charges
of housebreaking and larceny. As a result, on 4 March 1971, you
were convicted by civil authorities of grand larceny. You were
sentenced to confinement for 10 years. However, your sentence
was reduced to confinement for 1-to-7 years and to pay
restitution and court costs. The confinement was suspended and

you were placed on probation for five years. On 17 March 1971
you were returned to military custody, thus ending a 291 day

period of UA.

On 23 March 1971 you were notified of pending administrative
separation action by reason of misconduct due to civil
conviction. After consulting with legal counsel, you elected to
present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB). On
10 May 1971 an ADB recommended an undesirable discharge by reason
of misconduct due to civil conviction. Subsequently, your
commanding officer also recommended an undesirable discharge by
reason of misconduct. On 10 June 1971 the discharge authority
approved these recommendations and directed an undesirable
discharge, and on 16 June 1971, you were so discharged.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth, post service conduct, character reference letters,
period of honorable service, combat history, and the passage of
time. It also considered your assertions that you were told that
your discharge would be automatically upgraded and of legal
misrepresentation. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these
factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your
discharge because of the seriousness of your misconduct, which
resulted in conviction by civil authorities. Further, no
discharge is automatically upgraded due solely to the passage of
time or an individual’s good post service conduct. Finally,
there is no evidence in the record, and you submitted none, to
support your assertions. 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,
\DS»€

W. DEAN PFE
Executive D or

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 02157-10

    Original file (02157-10.pdf) 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. On 30 January 1969, shortly after being released from confinement, you began another period of UA that was not terminated until you were apprehended on 8 April 1969, On 19 May 1969 you were again UA for a three day. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07352-06

    Original file (07352-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 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. 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 | CY2013 | NR7912 13

    Original file (NR7912 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 August 2014. 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 6 July 1972 you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) ' of a 570 day period of UA and sentenced to confinement at hard labor for four...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00602-08

    Original file (00602-08.pdf) 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. Furthermore, the Board noted that in addition to your civil conviction, you had an NJP and were convicted by a 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02720-09

    Original file (02720-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    _ A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 December 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. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given the seriousness of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09234-07

    Original file (09234-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 November 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08823-08

    Original file (08823-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 July 2009. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with ail material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Subsequently, the discharge authority directed your commanding officer to issue you an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08649-06

    Original file (08649-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 July 2007. your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. On 25 January 1962, upon release from Civil authorities, you were returned to military control thus terminating a 39 day period of UA. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10974-02

    Original file (10974-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 October 2003. On 24 June 1968 you were convicted by SCM of a 15 day period of UA and sentenced to a $65 forfeiture of pay and confinement at hard labor for 30 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 | CY2013 | NR6922 13

    Original file (NR6922 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 July 2014. On 8 October 1962, an ADB recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to civil conviction. 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.