Lo
jdt
AL
‘regulation
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON pc 20370-5100 son
Docket No: 03323-09
25 February 2010
r application for correction of your
ovigions of title 10 of the United
AB three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive gession, considered your
application on 23 F
ebruary 2010. your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
s and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this
Board. _Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of
your application, togethe
thereot, your nava
“and policies.
you enlisted in the Navy and began 4 period of active duty om
7 June 1976 at age 18. on 3 November 1977 and 12 June 1978,
you received nonjudicial punishment (NgP}) for cthree days of
unauthorized absence (UA), six instances of absence from your
appointed place of auty, and two instances of disobedience. on
19 March 1979 you submitted a written request for a good of the
4 oid trial by court-martial for
seven specifications of UA totaling 144 days, and two ,
specifications of failure to g° to your appointed piace of duty.
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
20 April 1979, you received an other ethan honorable discharge for
the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. As a
result of this action, you were spared che stigma of 4 court -
martial conviction and the potential penalties of a punitive -
The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, overall
record of service, and belief that your characterization of
service should be upgraded because of a Department of Veterans
Affairs (DVA) determination that your service was under honorable
conditions. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were
not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge
because of your misconduct that resulted in two NJP’s,
charges being preferred to a court-martial for periods of UA
totaling over four months and absence from your appointed place
of duty, and your request for discharge. The Board believed that
considerable clemency was axtended 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, even though the Board of Veterans’
Appeals determined that your service was performed under
honorable conditions in order to establish your entitlement to
veterans benefits, such a determination does not, in and of
itself, require that your other than honorable discharge be
upgraded. 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,
>, Aadn en
4A
ROBERT D.~ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02554-09
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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3342-13
1980, you made a written request for an other _ than honorable (OTH) discharge to-avoid trial by court-martial for three instances of UA from your unit for a period totaling 30 days, failure to go to you appointed place of duty, . ‘The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as recharacterization of your. when your request for.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06250-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 June 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. As a result, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for the foregoing period...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07268-07
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.On 15 September 1977, you enlisted in the Navy at age 17. On 17 October 1982, you began another UA...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08523-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 April 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 probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09632-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 August 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06162-08
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. During the period 4 April to 10 August 1978, you were in a UA status, a period of about 128 days. On 15 August 1979, the separation authority approved the recommendation and directed an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct due to frequent discreditable involvement.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8164 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 September 2014. 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 | CY2006 | 05225-06
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.The Board found you enlisted in the Marine Corps on 4 October 1978 at age 17. On 25 July 1980 your...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03584-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 January 2010. On 22 November 1968, you received NUP for UA from you appointed place of duty. On 28 May 1970 you were 8O discharged.