Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03697-08
Original file (03697-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

 

SIN

Docket No: 03697-08
2 April 2009

 

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 31 March 2009. 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 and began a period of active
duty on 17 June 1966 at age 17. During the period from

11 September 1967 to 11 June 1968, you received three nonjudicial
punishments (NUPs) for dereliction of duty, disobedience, anda
brief unauthorized absence (UA). On 25 July 1968, you were
convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of 21 days of UA. On 23
September 1968 and 11 July 1969, you were convicted by special
court-martial (SPCM) of three specifications of UA totaling

33 days. As a result of your last SPCM, you were sentenced to
confinement at hard labor, a forfeiture of pay, and a bad conduct
discharge (BCD).

On 13 July 1969, you began a period of UA that lasted 824 days,
ending on 15 October 1972. During this period of UA, on 18 July
1969, the convening authority suspended your BCD for six months.
However, you began another period of UA that lasted over three
years, ending on 6 February 1976. Subsequently, on 3 March 1976,
you submitted a written request for a good of the service
discharge in order to avoid iivial by court-martial for two
periods of UA totaling over five years. Prior to submitting this
request for discharge, you conferred with a qualified military
lawyer, were advised of your rights, and were warned of the
probable adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge.

Your request for discharge was granted and on 25 March 1976, you
received an other than honorable discharge for the good of the
service in lieu of trial by court-martial. As a result of this
action, 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 application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, overall
record of service, service in Vietnam, post service
accomplishments, post service health issues, and character
letters accompanying your application. Nevertheless, the Board
concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant
recharacterization of your discharge because of your misconduct
that resulted in three NJP’s, a conviction by SCM, two
convictions of by SPCM, and charges being preferred to a court-
martial for two periods of UA totaling over five years. 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,

\ Sank

W.

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12082-09

    Original file (12082-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 August 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with ali 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 | CY2009 | 12074-09

    Original file (12074-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 August 2010. On 2 April 1969, you then began a period of UA which lasted 96 days. Your request for discharge was granted and on 11 May 1970, you received an other than honorable discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10974-02

    Original file (10974-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 October 2003. On 24 June 1968 you were convicted by SCM of a 15 day period of UA and sentenced to a $65 forfeiture of pay and confinement at hard labor for 30 days. 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 | 01398-09

    Original file (01398-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, his naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. However, the convening authority suspended your BCD for a period of 12 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 | CY2002 | 05868-01

    Original file (05868-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 February 2002. 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,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10982-10

    Original file (10982-10.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. 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 | CY2009 | 02408-09

    Original file (02408-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 January 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 misconduct...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR2487-13

    Original file (NR2487-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 February 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00909-02

    Original file (00909-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 July 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. day period of UA that was not terminated until you were apprehended on 29 September 1976. submitted a written request for an undesirable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for the two periods of UA totalling...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 07427-05

    Original file (07427-05.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 28 March 1968 at age 18. As a result, on 5 March 1971, you...