DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON BC 20370-5100 .
TJIR
Rocket No: 9486-08
13 August 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 11 August 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 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 4 November 1965 at age 19 and
served without disciplinary incident until 22 April 1966, when
you received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for disobedience.
On 26 January 1967 you were convicted by special court-martial
(SPCM) of an 80 day period of unauthorized absence (UA) and on 20
July 1967 you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of a
76 day period of UA.
On 19 March 1968 you were again convicted by SPCM of a 100 day
period of UA. You were sentenced to confinement at hard labor
for 6ix months, a $240 forfeiture of pay, and a bad conduct
discharge (BCD), all of which was suspended for six months.
Nonetheless, on 25 March 1969, you were convicted by SPCM of a
252 day period of UA and sentenced to a $270 forfeiture of pay,
and confinement at hard labor for six months. On 21 April 1969,
the 19 March 1968 suspended sentence was vacated due to your
continued misconduct as evidenced by the 25 March 1969 SPcM.,
Subsequently, the BCD was approved at alli levels of review and on
22 August 1969 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. It also
considered your assertion that you requested a hardship discharge
so that you could provide help to your mother. Nevertheless, the
Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant
recharacterization of your BCD because of the seriousness of your
repetitive and lengthy periods of UA. Finally, there is no
evidence in the record, and you submitted none, to support your
assertion. 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,
Lo ouS f
W. DEAN PF R
Executive D tor
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02201-09
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 31 December 1968 you were again convicted by SPCM of an 87 day period of UA and sentenced to confinement at hard labor for six months and a bad conduct discharge (BCD). Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07748-07
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 reenlisted in the Navy on 10 November 1967 after four years of prior honorable service. Shortly...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04158-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 December 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Consequently,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05868-01
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 | CY2007 | 04031-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 January 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. On 5 November 1965 and 3 March 1967, you received two more NUJP’s for a four-day period of UA and another period of UA.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08600-06
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 July 2007. your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Nevertheless, on 17 November 1969 you received your sixth NUP for failure to obey a lawful order and were awarded restriction and extra duty for 14 days. The record further reflects that on 1...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10506-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval’ Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 July 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. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant changing the characterization of your discharge, given your record...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06040-07
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 4 December 1967 at age 17. You were sentenced to confinement for...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04596-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 September 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. January 1968 you received NJP for a 14 day period of UA and were awarded a $20 forfeiture of pay. Given the circumstances of your case, the Board concluded...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01178-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 June 2009. 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...