DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TIR
Docket No: 171-08
1 December 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 25 November 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 21 November 1975 at age 17
and served without disciplinary incident until 15 May 1977, when
you received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for disobedience and
negligence by discharging a firearm. The punishment imposed was
reduction to paygrade E-1 and extra duty for 30 days.
On 23 January 1978 you were convicted by special court-martial
(SPCM) of a 168 day period of unauthorized absence (UA). You
were sentenced to a $200 forfeiture of pay, reduction to paygrade
E-1, confinement at hard labor for two months, and a bad conduct
discharge (BCD). Subsequently, the BCD was suspended for six
months. On 5 October 1978 you were convicted by summary court-
martial (SCM) of sleeping on post and being out of uniform. You
were sentenced to a $250 forfeiture of pay and confinement at
hard labor for 30 days.
On 30 October 1978 you were notified of pending administrative
discharge action by reason of misconduct due to frequent
involvement of a discreditable nature with military or civilian
authorities. At that time you waived your right to consult with
legal counsel and to present your case to an administrative
discharge board (ADB). Subsequently, your commanding officer
recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by
reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement of a
discreditable nature with military or civilian authorities. The
discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed
separation under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct and
on 18 December 1978 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 and desire to have your discharge upgraded. It also
considered you assertion that you were unjustly discharged as a
result of a personal conflict with your superiors. 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 NUP and two
court-martial convictions, and included a lengthy period of UA.
Finally, the Board also noted that you were awarded a BCD and
given an opportunity to receive a better characterization of
service when the BCD was suspended. However, your misconduct
continued and you were given another opportunity to defend
yourself, but waived your procedural right to present your case
to an ADB. 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,
\Qea&
W. DEAN PFE
Executive DirdAc*¥s8r
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02008-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 December 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. On 13 April 1962 you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of absence from your appointed place of duty and sentenced to hard labor for...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 11339-07
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. On 15 November 1968 you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of three periods of UA totalling 64 days and sentenced to confinement at hard labor for three months. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07972-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 September 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 11902-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your - application on 27 October 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02178-02
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. 2 convicted by summary court-martial On 19 February 1980, you were of an unauthorized absence from 25 January to 29 January 1980, a failure to go to appointed place of duty; period of four days; missing ship's movement; The punishment...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10197-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 September 2003. imposed was reduction to On 11 March and again on 5 May 1959 you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of two periods of unauthorized absence (UA) totalling three days and breaking restriction. January 1961 the discharge authority then directed an undesirable discharge by reason of unfitness due to frequent involvement of a discreditable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 00142-03
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 October 2003. On 16 October 1980 an ADB recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct. 2 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 | CY2009 | 07490-09
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. The record does not reflect the disciplinary action taken, if any, for this 56 day period of UA. 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 | CY2012 | 04128-12
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 | CY2007 | 05790-07
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 Navy on 24 July 1978 at age 18. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors...