DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TUR
Docket No: 4389-09
8 March 2010
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
late husband’s 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 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 husband enlisted in the Navy on 28 March 1967 at age 19 and
served without disciplinary incident until 10 June 1968, when he
received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for a five day period of
unauthorized absence (UA) and missing the movement of his ship.
About six months later, on 8 January 1969, he received NUP for a
nine day period of UA.
During the period from 27 February 1969 to 21 February 1970 your
husband was in a UA status on two occasions that were not
terminated until he was apprehended by civil authorities. Also,
during these periods of UA he was declared a deserter. On 29
August 1969 and 7 March 1970 he received NUP for the foregoing
periods of UA and failure to obey a lawful order. However, these
offenses were referred for trial by court-martial. As a result,
on 28 April 1976, your husband was convicted by general court-
martial (GCM) of two periods of UA totalling 310 days and failure
to obey a lawful order. He was sentenced to confinement at hard
labor for four months, a $452 forfeiture of pay, reduction to
paygrade E-1, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD). At that time he
submitted a written statement in which he explained that he was
UA because he was taking care of his mother who had recently
undergone an operation for cancer. Shortly thereafter, on 24
June 1970, he submitted a written request for immediate execution
of the BCD in which he stated, in part, that he wanted out of the
Navy because he needed to take care of bigger problems at home.
In August 1970 your husband’s commanding officer stated, in part,
that he was a somewhat slow individual in his thought processes
and was apparently closely attached to his mother; that he had a
religious background, but very little religious inclinations; and
that his main problem was that he received very infrequent
correspondence from his mother. The commanding officer also
stated that, although he could not, he would have like to have
recommended your husband for a general discharge. Subsequently,
the BCD was approved at all levels of review, and on 4 September
1970, your husband was issued a BCD.
The Board, in its review of your late husband’s entire record and
your application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating
factors, such as his youth, desire to upgrade his discharge, and
the reference letters provided in support of your request. It
also considered the assertion that your late husband’s periods of
UA were due to the death of his brother. Nevertheless, these
factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of his
discharge given the frequency and seriousness of his lengthy
periods of UA from the Navy which resulted in two NUJPs and a GCM.
Finally, the Board noted that there is documented evidence in the
record that is contrary te the assertion that the periods of UA
were due to a relative’s death. 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,
Wc
W. DEAN PF E
Executive cto
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00618-09
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. Subsequently, upon his return, on 19 February 1970, he submitted a request for an administrative discharge in order to avoid trial by another court-martial for the additional periods of UA. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07888-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 July 2008. on 16 March 1946, your late husband The Board, in its review of your late husband's record and your application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, and your contention that he was discharged due to medical problems. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 00575-12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 November 2012. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08496-09
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 | CY2008 | 09486-08
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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074203C070403
The applicant requests upgrade of the discharge of her late husband, the deceased former service member (FSM). This program, known as the DOD Discharge Review Program (Special) (SDRP) required, in the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, that a discharge upgrade to either honorable or general be issued in the case of any individual who had either completed a normal tour of duty in Southeast Asia, been wounded in action, been awarded a military decoration other than a service...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03737-10
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 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 | 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 | CY2012 | 00545-12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered his application on 9 February 2012. 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 brother enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on 6 September 1966.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR2623-13
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 30 December 1969 you: submitted a written request for immediate execution of the BCD, stating in.part,.that you were of no use to the Navy since you. for a correction of an official naval -record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the - existence of probable material error...