- DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
SIN
Docket No: 01298-09
11 December 2009
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of Titie 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 8 December 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 of
injustice. .
“you reenlisted in the Navy on 12 July 1968 after three years of
honorable service. On 3 September 1968, you received nonjudicial
punishment (NUP) for unauthorized absence (UA). On 5 January and
24 February 1970, you were convicted by special court-martial
(SPCM) of two periods of UA totaling 97 days. On 16 June 1970,
you were convicted by civil authorities of drunken driving. On
10 August 1070, you received a second NUP for seven days of UA.
On 25 November 1970, you were convicted by summary court-martial
(SCM) of 21 days of UA.
On 16 December 1970, you were notified of pending administrative
separation action by reason of misconduct due to frequent
involvement of a discreditable nature with military and civilian
authorities. After being advised of your procedural rights, you
waived the right to an administrative discharge board (ADB).
Your case was forwarded and the separation authority directed an
undesirable discharge. On 14 February 1971 you began another
period of UA that lasted 347 days, ending with your apprehension
on 27 January i972.
On 30 March 1972, you submitted a written request for a good of
the service discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial
for your last period of UA, which was denied on 27 April 1972.
On 12 May 1972, a medical report stated, in part, that you were a
habitual drinker and recommended that you attend an alcohol
rehabilitation program. Subsequently, you were convicted by SPCM
of the 347 day period of UA on 19 May 1972. You were sentenced
to confinement at hard labor and a bad conduct discharge (BCD) .
However, the convening authority suspended the entire sentence
for a period of 12 months. You were released from confinement
awaiting a place in an alcoholic rehabilitation center when you
began an additional period of UA on 7 June 1972, that lasted
99 days, ending with your apprehension on 22 September 1972.
Subsequently, on 8 November 1972, you submitted another written
request for a good of the service discharge in order to avoid
trial by court-martial for that period of UA. Prior to
submitting this request for discharge, you conferred with a
qualified military lawyer, were advised of your rights, and
warned of the probable adverse consequences of accepting such a
discharge. 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 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 prior honorable
service, overall record of your last period of active duty, and
the problems you were having with drinking alcohol.
Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not
sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge
because of your misconduct that resulted in two NUP’s, a civil
conviction, conviction by SCM, two SPCM convictions, charges
being preferred to a court-martial for a period of UA totaling
over three months, and request for discharge. 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 Navy when your
request for discharge was granted and should not be permitted to
change it now. Finally, the Board felt you were given an
opportunity to earn a better characterization of service when
your BCD was suspended for a period 12 months. 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 PFE
Executive Di oO
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 05736-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 November 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 26 November 1971, you received an other than honorable discharge for the good of the service in...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 12214-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 August. Your request for discharge was granted and, on 21 January 1992, you received an OTH discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your NUP and SPCM for periods of UA, and last period of UA that lasted over four years.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10303-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 August 2009. On 14 August 1975, after consulting with a military lawyer you requested that the Marine Corps issue you an_ undesirable discharge in order to avoid court-martial for four additional periods of UA totaling 571 days, three of which were terminated by apprehension. In this regard the Board believed considerable clemency was extended to you when...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04823-11
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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 12122-10
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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your two NUP’s, conviction by SPCM of a lengthy period of UA, and your request for discharge to avoid trial for a period of UA lasting over 15 months. Consequently, when applying...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12405-09
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. 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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01821-00
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. 1971 you were so discharged. evidence and materials submitted were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your lengthy period of UA and your request for discharge to avoid trial for the same.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03697-08
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 25 March 1976, you received an other than honorable discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12082-09
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 | CY2006 | 04664-06
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 Navy on 1 August 1969 at age 18. After you were restored to duty you received...