Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00917-08
Original file (00917-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

TUR
Docket No: 917-08
10 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 9 December 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 7 January 1974 at age 18.
About six months later, on 9 July 1974, you received nonjudicial
punishment (NJP) for a 23 day period of unauthorized absence
(UA). Shortly thereafter, on 8 October 1974, you received NUP
for a 19 day period of UA.

On 19 March 1975 you were convicted by special court-martial
(SPCM) of unauthorized purchases of alcoholic beverages. You
were sentenced to a $375 forfeiture of pay and confinement at
hard labor for one month. On 6 June 1975 you began another
period of UA that was not terminated until you were apprehended
by Japanese civil authorities. As a result of this arrest, on 20
October 1975, you were convicted by civil authorities of
possession and use of explosives to commit a crime and robbery.
You were sentenced to confinement at forced labor for two years
and six montis.
On 18 November 1975, while in the custody of civil authorities,
you were notified of pending administrative separation by reason
of misconduct due to the civil conviction. After consulting with
legal counsel you elected to present your case to an
administrative discharge board (ADB). On 5 December 1975 an ADB
recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by
reason of misconduct due to conviction by civil authorities.
Subsequently, your commanding officer also recommended discharge
under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due
to civil conviction. On 24 December 1975 the discharge authority
approved these recommendations, and on 2 November 1976 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 upgrade your discharge so that you may
obtain veterans’ benefits. It also considered your assertion
that you were told that your discharge would be upgraded six
months after your separation from the Marine Corps.
Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not
sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge
because of the seriousness of your misconduct in both the
military and foreign civilian communities, and the repeated and
lengthy periods of UA from the Marine Corps. Further, there is
no evidence in the record, and you submitted none, to support
your assertion. Finally, no discharge is upgraded due solely to
the passage of time. 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,

Lo Qua SP

W. DEAN PFEVY
Executive DiWjec

   

 

 

NS

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 01172-07

    Original file (01172-07.rtf) 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.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 23 May 1972 at age 18. On 19 September 1973 you were again...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 01145-07

    Original file (01145-07.rtf) 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.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 3 October 1972 at age 17 and served for nearly a year without...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03451-10

    Original file (03451-10.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 February 2011. 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 | CY2002 | 03724-02

    Original file (03724-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 December 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative of this regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings Board. On 21 June 1973 you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of breaking restriction and were sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 30 days and a $75 forfeiture of pay. On 25 May 1976 the discharge authority...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 11117-07

    Original file (11117-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02316-09

    Original file (02316-09.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 June 1976 you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to civil conviction. On 17 June 1976 the discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed your commanding officer to issue you an other than honorable | discharge by reason...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02028-08

    Original file (02028-08.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. However, during the period from 16 May to 5 December 1975 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on six occasions for insubordination, disrespect, disobedience, communicating a threat, absence from your appointed place of duty, and four periods of unauthorized absence (UA) totalling 15...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09930-09

    Original file (09930-09.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 6 July 1973, you received NUP for being UA for a period of 15 days. Your case was heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB), which voted two to one in favor of an other than honorable discharge.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 02717-11

    Original file (02717-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 January 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. You requested to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB).

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08765-07

    Original file (08765-07.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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...