Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03911-08
Original file (03911-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

BAN
Docket No: 03911-08
16 January 2009

 

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 14 January 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 on 14 February 1972, and served
without disciplinary incident until 28 March 1972, when you
received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for failure to obey a
lawful order.

Shortly thereafter, you received the following disciplinary
actions: on 20 October 1972, you received NJP for failure to
obey a lawful order; on 20 November 1973, you received NJP for
three specifications of failure to obey a lawful order by
possessing alcohol in the’ barracks, dereliction of duty, and
sleeping on duty; on 20 February 1974, you were convicted at a
summary court-martial (SCM) for three specifications of
unauthorized absence (UA); on 11 March 1974, you received NUP for
disorderly conduct, and failure to obey a lawful order; and on 20
June 1974, you were convicted at a SCM for a UA, in excess of 27
days.
In addition, on 23 August 1974, you were granted a drug waiver
and retained in the service for the self-admitted use of LSD,
marijuana, and heroin, thereby obtaining the rehabilitation that
you required. In spite of your drug use and disciplinary
actions, you were allowed to be retained until 8 October 1974,
when, through counsel, you requested to be separated for the good
of the service in lieu of a trial by court-martial for pending
additional charges of UA, dereliction of duty and failure to obey
a lawful order. On 3 October 1974, the separation authority
approved your request and on 1 November 1974, you were separated
with an other than honorable discharge and an RE-4 reenlistment
code.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth and belief that enough time has elapsed to warrant
upgrading your discharge. Nevertheless, the Board concluded
these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization
of your discharge because of the seriousness of your misconduct.
Further, there is no provision in the law or regulations that
allows for recharacterization of service due solely to the
passage of time. Furthermore, the Board believed that
considerable clemency was extended to you when your request for
discharge to avoid trial by court-martial 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 you 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,

ay
wurde
W. DEAN R
Executive br or

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07199-10

    Original file (07199-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 April 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. Your request for discharge was granted and on 18 June 1974, you received an OTH discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06887-06

    Original file (06887-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 March 2007. 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 | 06920-10

    Original file (06920-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 March 2011. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08741-07

    Original file (08741-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, gitting 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. As a result, on 28 February 1975, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 09712 12

    Original file (09712 12.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 October 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. On 5 December 1975 you received your seventh NUP for two periods of absence from your appointed place of duty and a three day period of UA.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03156-09

    Original file (03156-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 February 2010. 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 initially enlisted in the Air Force from July 1972 to April 1974, and received an honorable discharge. Consequently, when applying for a correction of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 02052-11

    Original file (02052-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 March 2011. Six days later, on 26 August 1988, you received NUP for dereliction of duty, absence from your appointed place of duty, and four specifications of failure to obey a lawful order. 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 | 02609-09

    Original file (02609-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 February 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. On 10 October 1962, you received NJP for UA from your unit.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06450-09

    Original file (06450-09.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 May 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 found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your record of two NJP’s...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06087-10

    Original file (06087-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 March 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...