Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03426-09
Original file (03426-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

TAL
Docket No: 3426-09
28 January 2010

 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your
late husband’s naval record pursuant to the provisions of title
10 of the United States Code, section 1552.

R three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your ~
application on 13 January 2010. 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 late husband's 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.

Your late husband Herman Dubose enlisted in the Marine Corps and
began a period of active guty on 14 March 1973 at age 19. On 18
March 1974, he received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for four
instances of unauthorized absence (UA) from his unit. On 12
September 1974, he: was convicted at a special court-martial

(SpcM) for a 103 day period of VA from his unit. On 16 September
1974, he began a 134 day period of UA from his unit until he
surrendered on 28 January 1975, On 12 March 1975, he submitted a
written request for an other than honorable (OTH) discharge in
order to avoid trial by court-martial for the pending charge of
UA from his. unit. Prior to submitting this request for
discharge, he conferred with a qualified military Lawyer, was
advised of his rights, and warned of the probable adverse
consequences of accepting such a discharge. Subsequently, his
request for discharge was granted and, on 3 April 1975, he
received an OTH discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. As
a result of this action, he was spared the stigma of a court-

martial conviction and the potential penalties of a punitive
discharge.
The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as his youth and overall
record of service. Nevertheless, the Board concluded

these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization
of his discharge given the seriousness of the misconduct that
resulted in periods of UA totaling over seven months. The Board
believed that considerable clemency was extended to him when his
request for discharge was approved. The Board also concluded
that he received the benefit of his bargain with the Marine Corps
when his 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,

Executive Di

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01628-09

    Original file (01628-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 November 2009. your application, together with all Material submitted in support thereof, your late husband’s naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your late husband's discharge because of the seriousness of his misconduct and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04201-09

    Original file (04201-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 February 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your late husband’s naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. On 16 April 1987, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07458-10

    Original file (07458-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 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 | CY2009 | 07045-09

    Original file (07045-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 May 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 concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given the seriousness of your...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02983-09

    Original file (02983-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 January 2010. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of your misconduct that resulted in periods of UA totaling over five months, and request for discharge. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03737-10

    Original file (03737-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 deceased husband’s naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Confequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08496-09

    Original file (08496-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 June 2010. 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 ali material submitted in support thereof, your late husband's naval record, and applicable statutes,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04040-11

    Original file (04040-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 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. 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 | 06004-10

    Original file (06004-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 March 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 | CY2010 | 06269-10

    Original file (06269-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 March 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...