DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
RDZ:ech
Docket No. 01439-08
24 November 2008
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the
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 19 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 that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice.
You enlisted in the Navy on 1 May 1969 at age 18. On 24 April
1970 you received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for 13 days of
unauthorized absence (UA). You received a second NUP on 11
August 1970 for seven days of UA. On 4 March 1971 you were
tried and convicted by special court-martial of two periods of
UA totaling 131 days and missing movement. Both periods of UA
were terminated when you were apprehended. ‘The sentence of
court as finally approved consisted of a bad conduct discharge
(BCD), three months confinement at hard labor, forfeiture of pay
and reduction in rank. On 7 May 1971 you requested that you be
given the BCD and stated that if you were returned to duty you
would go UA again. You received your BCD on 3 September 1971.
In its review of your application the Board took into account
all matters in extenuation and mitigation such as your youth and
contention that your offenses were the direct result of family
problems. Nevertheless the concluded that in view of your
repetitive misconduct and the seriousness of the offenses for
which you were court-martialed your discharge was proper as
issued and should not be changed now as a matter of clemency.
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,
W. DEAN PFEINF
Executive Dirac
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01298-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 December 2009. , 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 of injustice. Your request for discharge was granted and on 19 December 1972, you received an other than honorable discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05557-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 January 2008. On 24 July 1975, the separation authority denied your request. 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 | CY2010 | 09118-10
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. Your request for discharge was granted and on 4 June 1971, you received an other than honorable discharge (OTH) for the good of service to avoid trial by court-martial. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR1441-13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 March 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. 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 | CY2010 | 10982-10
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. As a result, on 27 January 1971, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00690-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 November 2008. The BCD was subsequently suspended for six months. 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 | CY2011 | 04170-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 February 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 | 03984-12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 February 2013. On 20 June 1970, you were convicted by a special court-martial (SPCM) of willfully disobeying a lawful order from a commissioned officer and two incidents of assaulting a fellow Marine. 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 | 01704-09
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 TIR Docket No: 1704-09 15 December 2009 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 8 December 2009. On 27 July and 3 September 1970, you received NUP for two periods of UA totalling 13 days. Nevertheless, these factors were...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07775-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 June 2008. 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 material error or injustice.