DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-51360
TJIR
Docket No: 3186-09
8 March 2010
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 2 March 2010. 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 20 September 1965 at age 18.
You served without disciplinary incident until 15 April 1966,
when you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of two
periods of unauthorized absence (UA) totalling 24 days. About
four months later, on 12 August 1966, you were again convicted by
SPCM of a 49 day period of UA.
During the period from 30 June to 3 October 1967 you received
nonjudicial punishment (NIP) on four occasions for a three day
period of UA, breaking restriction, failure to obey a lawful
order, and absence from your appointed place of duty.
On 31 October 1968 you began another period of UA that was not
terminated until 12 December 1968. During this period of UA you
were also declared a deserter, however, only the charge of UA was
referred for court-martial. On 8 and 22 January 1969 you
submitted written requests for an other than honorable discharge
in order to avoid trial by court-martial for the foregoing period
of UA totalling 43 days. Prior to submitting these requests you
conferred with a qualified military lawyer at which time you were
advised of your rights and warned of the probable adverse
consequences of accepting such a discharge. Your requests were
granted and the commanding officer was directed to issue you an
other than honorable discharge by reason of the good of the’
service. 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. On 10 February
1969 you received your fifth NIP for breaking restriction.
Nonetheless, on 12 February 1969, you were issued an other than
honorable discharge.
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 the characterization of your
discharge. It also considered your assertions that you were told
that you would receive a general discharge and that you did
nothing dishonorable. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these
factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your
discharge because of the seriousness of your frequent and lengthy
periods of UA from the Marine Corps which resulted in several
disciplinary actions and your request for discharge. The Board
believed that considerable clemency was extended to you when your
request for discharge to avoid trial by court-martial was
approved. Further, the Board 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. Further, 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,
W. DEAN
Executive
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11222-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 September 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 13 January 1971 you submitted a written request for an other than honorable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01094-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 November 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 seven...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08139-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your — application on 8 October 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR2620-13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 February 2014. ae You enlisted in- the Navy-and_began a period of active duty on 17 _ September 1965... You served for about seven months without. two SPCMs, and your request for immediate execution of the BCD.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06337-08
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. 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 periods of UA which resulted in two NUPs and your request for discharge to avoid trial by court-martial. ...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07490-09
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. The record does not reflect the disciplinary action taken, if any, for this 56 day period of UA. 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 | 02323-09
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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...
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 | 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 | CY2002 | 10974-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 October 2003. On 24 June 1968 you were convicted by SCM of a 15 day period of UA and sentenced to a $65 forfeiture of pay and confinement at hard labor for 30 days. 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.