Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04602-09
Original file (04602-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

 

TAL -
Docket No: 4602-09
12 March 2010

 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant t6 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 3 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 enlisted in the Navy Reserve on 31 May 1974 at age 20. On 15
March 1979, you were issued active duty for training orders. The
orders were sent to you by certified mail, however, they were
returned undeliverable. On 24 April 1979, you failed to report
for the 45 days active duty for training as directed by the Chief
of Naval Reserve orders of 15 March 1973, so you were considered
to be in unauthorized absence (UA) status. On 6 November 1969,
“you surrendered to civilian authorities in Helena, Montana, after
a period of 196 days of UA from your unit. On 22 February 1980,
you began a 141 day period of UA from your unit and surrendered
to military control on 13 July 1980. On 8 September 1980, you
submitted a written request for a good of ,the service discharge
ain order to avoid trial by court-martial for the above listed
charges of UA. You conferred with a qualified military lawyer,
were advised of your rights, and warned of the probable adverse
consequences of accepting such a discharge. On 8 September 1980,
your commanding officer forwarded his recommendation that you be
discharged for the good of the service with an other than
honorable (OTH) discharge. On 29 September 1980, the separation
authority approved an OTH discharge for the good of the service.
On 10 October 1980 you were so discharged. 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, overall
record of service and the character letter accompanying your
application. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors
were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your
discharge given the seriousness of your misconduct that resulted
in periods of UA totaling over 11 months and request for
discharge to avoid trial. 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.

-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,

ers

Executive Dix

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03726-10

    Original file (03726-10.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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record,’ the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 00381-12

    Original file (00381-12.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. On 29 October 1982, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable (OTH) discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00595-11

    Original file (00595-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 October 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 | 06128-08

    Original file (06128-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 March 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 | 05736-08

    Original file (05736-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 February 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. The Board also concluded that you received the benefit of your bargain with the Marine Corps when your request for discharge was granted and you...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12651-09

    Original file (12651-09.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 August 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. 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 | 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 | 09537-09

    Original file (09537-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 July 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 | 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 | CY2008 | 05804-08

    Original file (05804-08.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. On 1 February 1979, you were warned that further infractions could result in disciplinary action...