DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TUR
Docket No: 5011-08
5 March 2009
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
late daughter’s 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 3 March 2009. The names and votes of the members
of the panel will be furnished upon request. 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 daughter’s 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.
Your daughter reenlisted in the Marine Corps on 13 March 1984
after two years and four months of prior honorable service. She
continued to serve without disciplinary infraction until December
1986, when her urine sample tested positive for amphetamines and
methamphetamines.
On 13 January 1987 your daughter began a period of unauthorized
absence (UA) that was not terminated until 17 August 1987.
During this period of UA she was also declared a deserter. On 18
August 1987 she signed an administrative remarks entry which
confirmed her illegal usage of amphetamines and methamphetamines.
She also submitted a written request for an other than honorable
discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for the
foregoing period of UA totalling 216 days. Prior to submitting
this request, she conferred with a qualified military Lawyer at
which time she was advised of her rights and warned of the
probable adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge.
Subsequently, your daughter’s request for an other than honorable
discharge was granted and her commanding officer was directed to
issue her an other than honorable discharge by reason of the good
of the service. As a result of this action, she was spared the
stigma of a court-martial conviction and the potential penalties
of a punitive discharge and confinement at hard labor. On 19
August 1987, while serving in the rank of lance corporal, your
daughter was issued an other than honorable discharge.
The Board, in its review of your late daughter’s entire record
and your application, carefully weighed all potentially
mitigating factors, such as her prior honorable service and your
desire to upgrade her discharge and correct the record to show
that she was advanced in rank to sergeant. It also considered
your assertions that your late daughter was threatened, ignored
by her superiors, worked undercover for the Navy, and was to be
promoted in rank to sergeant. The Board further considered your
assertions that she went UA as a means to protect herself after
being threatened and that she was emotionally scarred by the
mistreatment she received from the Marine Corps. Nevertheless,
the Board found the evidence and materials submitted were not
sufficient to warrant recharacterization of her discharge because
of the seriousness of her drug related misconduct and lengthy
period of UA which resulted in her request for discharge to avoid
trial by court-martial. Further, the Board believed that
considerable clemency was extended to her when her request for
discharge to avoid trial by court-martial was approved. Further,
the Board concluded that she received the benefit of her bargain
with the Marine Corps when her request for discharge was granted
and as such, the discharge should not be changed. Finally, there
is no evidence in the record, and you submitted none, to support
your assertions. Accordingly, your application has been denied.
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,
Ve
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02301-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 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. 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 | CY2008 | 09542-08
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your daughter’s 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. Consequentiy, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07480-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 June 2009. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your daughter’s 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 | CY2011 | 04540-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 02552-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 September 1999. 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 | CY2008 | 06467-08
Documentary material considered by the Board: consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your daughter’s 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 served without disciplinary incident until 15 July 1989, when you received...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 09459-04
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 October 1981 at age 19. Although the discharge documentation is...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07461-08
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in Support thereof, your daughter’s naval record, and applicable Statutes, regulations, and policies. Nevertheless, the Board found the evidence and materials submitted were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of the seriousness of your lengthy period of UA which resulted in your request for discharge to avoid trial by court- martial. ...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 02500-98
2500-98 14 April 1999 Dears This is in reference to your naval record pursuant to the States Code, Section 1552. application for correction of your provisions of Title 10, United \ A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 March 1999. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. also married with two daughters, ages 18...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03660-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 June 2011. You enlisted in the Marine Corps Reserve on 27 June 1995 at age 19 and began a period of active duty on 5 July 1995. The Board believed that had you not began your second period of UA for 114 days, you could have presumably been processed for separation based on the recommendation from medical authorities regarding your mental condition and your...