DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
CRS
Docket No: 10902-07
26 September 2008
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
late husband's naval record pursuant to the provisions of title
10 b£ the United States Code section 1552.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
appllication on 3 September 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 husband’s naval record and applicable statutes,
regulations and policies.
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice.
The Board found that your husband enlisted in the Marine Corps on
13 January 1965. He received two nonjudicial punishments for
offilenses that included an unauthorized absence of 42 days,
opening letters addressed to other Marines, and stealing mail.
On 23 June 1969 he was convicted by civil authorities of stealing
a cigarette machine, receiving stolen goods, and violation of the
Unilfform Firearms Act, and was sentenced to confinement for three
months.
A general court-martial convened on 19 August 1969 and found him
guilty of an unauthorized absence of 370 days. The court
sentenced him to confinement at hard labor for ten months,
forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a bad conduct
discharge. He was separated from the Marine Corps with a bad
conduct discharge on 19 February 1971.
On 29 January 1976 he was issued a clemency discharge, which
restored his civil rights but did not accord him veterans
benefits.
The Board did not accept your contention that your husband's
Clemency discharge had the effect of upgrading his discharge. [It
noted that a clemency discharge is not equivalent to an general
or honorable discharge. The Board was not persuaded that it would
not be in the interest of justice to upgrade his discharge given
his extensive disciplinary record. Accordingly, your application
has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel
will be furnished upon request.
It igs 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,
lo |
W. DEAN PFE
Executive Dir
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06552-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 May 2008. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your husband’s naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. His request for discharge was approved by the separation authority, and he received an undesirable discharge on 3 March 1970.
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01099-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Na-1 Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 July 1999. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your husband's naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. On 23 April 1969 the commanding officer recommended your husband be issued an undesirable discharge by reason of unfitness.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02562-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 July 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. On 22 June 1973 the commanding officer recommended that he be The record reflects that on 14 July 1969 he On 4 February 1970 he was evacuated On 21 September 1972 he was The court sentenced him to five years separated with...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00618-09
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. Subsequently, upon his return, on 19 February 1970, he submitted a request for an administrative discharge in order to avoid trial by another court-martial for the additional periods of UA. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10496-06
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 that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.The Board found that you enlisted in the Marine Corps on 1 May 1967. The court sentenced you to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07751-07
You were sentenced to be discharged from the Marine Corps with a bad conduct discharge. You were separated from the Marine Corps with a bad conduct discharge on 24 February 1971, upon completion of appellate review. 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 | CY2001 | 06690-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 May 2000. 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. Consequently, when...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 00575-12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 November 2012. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07741-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 October 2008. The Board concluded that those factors were insufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge, given your extensive disciplinary record, and the absence of credible evidence that you suffered from PTSD while in the Marine Corps. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02600-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, application on 14 August 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. He was On 24 March 1970, your husband was convicted by summary martial of an unauthorized absence from 12 February to 2 March 1970. court-martial, 46 days of unauthorized absence and his extensive in-service drug usage supported his...