Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07596-07
Original file (07596-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

TIR
Docket No: 7596-07

25 June 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 24 June 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 Marine Corps on 24 August 1978 at age 20 and

served without disciplinary incident until 12 February 1980, when
you received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for sleeping on post.
restriction

The punishment imposed was a $448 forfeiture of pay,
for 25 days, reduction to paygrade E-1, and correctional custody

for 15 days. About nine months later, on 13 November 1980, you
received NJP for absence from your appointed place of duty and
were awarded restriction and extra duty for 14 days and a $130
forfeiture of pay, all of which was suspended for three months.

On 13 January 1981 you were in an unauthorized absence (UA)
status for one day. However, the record does not contain the
disciplinary action taken, if any, for this misconduct. On 4
April 1981 you received NUP for disobedience and were awarded
restriction for 30 days and reduction to paygrade E-1. On 2 June
1981 you began a period of UA that was not terminated until 23
July 1981. As a result, on 17 August 1981, you submitted a
written request for an other than honorable discharge in order to
avoid trial by court-martial for the foregoing period of UA.
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. On 26 August 1981 yoyr request for discharge was
granted, and on 16 September 1981 you received an other than
honorable discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. Asa
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 desire to upgrade your discharge. It also
considered your assertions that your period of UA was the result
of your wife experiencing pregnancy problems, and that you were
to be discharged under honorable conditions for medical reasons.
Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not
sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge
because of the seriousness of your repetitive misconduct, which
resulted in three NUJPs and your lengthy period of UA, which was

also the result of your request for discharge. The Board
believed that considerable clemency was extended to you when your

request for discharge was approved. The Board also 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. 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,

\Qya
Ye
W. DEAN

Executive Di

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02317-09

    Original file (02317-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 February 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. You served without disciplinary infraction until 5 March 1979, when you began a period of unauthorized absence (UA) that was not terminated...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08057-07

    Original file (08057-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 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. It also considered your post service psychiatric, mental, and/or medical evaluations and the character reference letters submitted in support of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07529-07

    Original file (07529-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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 | CY2008 | 05352-08

    Original file (05352-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 April 2009. for breaking restriction, two specifications of wrongful use of Marijuana, and the foregoing period of UA totalling 164 days. discharge.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 01351 12

    Original file (01351 12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 December 2012. 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 | CY2012 | 04128-12

    Original file (04128-12.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. In February 1980 you were advised that administrative separation action had been initiated by reason of misconduct, but held in abeyance pending a medical evaluation for alcohol abuse. You were sentenced to confinement at hard labor for two months, a $598 forfeiture of pay, and a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04140-01

    Original file (04140-01.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 November 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. On 6 November 1980 you received NJP for absence from your appointed place of duty and were awarded a $125 forfeiture of pay and restriction and extra duty for 14 days. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 11188-07

    Original file (11188-07.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 2 May 1980 you received NUP for wrongful possession of marijuana and were awarded a $254 forfeiture of pay, reduction to paygrade E-2, and restriction and extra duty for 30 days. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05796-10

    Original file (05796-10.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 March 2011. On 14 June 1979, you received NUP for being disrespectful toward you a chief petty officer on two occasions, and failure to obey a written regulation. On 17 February 1983, after appellate review, you received the BCD.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02348-09

    Original file (02348-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 February 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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of your...