DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 TAL
Docket No: 01886-09
20 November 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 12 November 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 Navy and began a period of active duty on
8 October 1970 at age 17. On 21 April 1972, you began a period
of unauthorized absence (UA) that lasted 25 days, ending on 17
May 1972. Charges were preferred against you for that 25 day
period of UA, failure to obey a lawful order, and assault. Based
on the information currently contained in your record it appears
that you submitted a written request for an other than honorable
(OTH) discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial. 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. Subsequently, your request for discharge was granted
and, on 13 June 1972, you received an OTH discharge 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 and
overall period of service. Nevertheless, the Board concluded
these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization ©
of your discharge given the seriousness of your misconduct and
your voluntary request for separation. 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 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,
\Soa
W. DEAN PFt
Executive
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01298-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 December 2009. , 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. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11430-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 August 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with ail material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. On 4 April 1972, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable (OTH) discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04059-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 January 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 4 December 1973, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable (OTH) discharge in order to avoid trial by court- martial for two...
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 | CY2010 | 05219-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 March 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. 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 | 02529-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 December 2010. You submitted a request for a good of the service discharge to avoid trial by court-martial for the period of UA. Your request for discharge was granted and on 27 February 1975, you received an OTH discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04060-11
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 $. considered your: application on 12 January 2012. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given the seriousness of your misconduct that resulted in one NUP, a SCM, a 112 day period of UA and request for discharge.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03722-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your ~ application on 12 January 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08107-08
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. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00712-09
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. You were counseled and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action. 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, periods of UA...