Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04252-09
Original file (04252-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

SIN
Docket No: 04252-09
29 March 2010

 

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 23 March 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 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 reenlisted in the Navy on 27 June 1975 after two years of
honorable service. You served without incident until

12 May 1978, when you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for
89 days of unauthorized absence (UA) and missing movement. On

17 July 1978, you began a period of UA that lasted 554 days,
ending with your apprehension on 22 January 1980. Subsequently,
on 21 March 1980, you submitted a 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 were warned of the probable adverse
consequences of accepting such a discharge. Your request for
discharge was granted and on 14 April 1980, 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 youth, prior
honorable service, record of your last period of service, and
reason you went UA. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these
factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your
discharge because of your misconduct that resulted in NUP for a
lengthy period of UA and missing ship’s movement, charges being
preferred to a court-martial for a period of UA totaling over

18 months, and your 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. Accordingly, your application has been denied.
The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished
upon request.

The Board believes that you may be eligible for veterans’
benefits that accrued during your first period of service.
Whether or not you are eligible for benefits based on either
period of service is a matter under the cognizance of the
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA). If you have been denied
benefits, you should appeal that denial under procedures
established by the DVA.

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,

Den Php)

W. DEAN PFEYFF
Executive D Cc

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR0221-13

    Original file (NR0221-13.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 March 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. Based on the information currently contained in your record it appears that you submitted a written request for an other than honorable - (OTH)...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09570-07

    Original file (09570-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 December 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. You were released from active duty on 6 March 1970 with your service characterized as honorable.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04194-10

    Original file (04194-10.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 naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Your request to have your address corrected needs to be sent to Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) for an administrative correction, not the Board.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6380 14

    Original file (NR6380 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Although the discharge documentation is not in your record, it appears that you requested...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04839-10

    Original file (04839-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 February 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 | CY2002 | 03444-02

    Original file (03444-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 14 days of restriction was also imposed, The punishment imposed was a On 18 June 1980, NJP of 13 May 1980 was vacated due to your continued misconduct, th; previously suspended punishment from your and you again received NJP for another eight day period of unauthorized absence and missing ship's movement. On 19 April 1982, you were lSt Although...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 00263-12

    Original file (00263-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 September 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 | CY2009 | 09498-09

    Original file (09498-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 Board believes that you may be eligible for veterans’ benefits which accrued during your prior period of honorable service. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11696-10

    Original file (11696-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2006 | 07820-06

    Original file (07820-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 18 August 1976 at age 18. During this period of UA, you were convicted by...