Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04720-09
Original file (04720-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

TUR
Docket No: 4720-09
13 April 2010

 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your
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 13 April 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 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

inj (matics.

You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 29 April 1977 at age 25 and
served without disciplinary infraction until 1 May 1978, when you
received nonjudicial punishment (NJP for a two day period of
unauthorized absence (UA).

On 30 June 1980 you were convicted by special court-martial
(SPCM) of two periods of UA totalling 62 days. About three
months later, on 8 and 30 September 1980, you. received NJP for
misbehavior as a sentinel, dereliction of duty, and destroying
government property, specifically, an identification card.

On 29 May 1981 you began another period of UA that was not
terminated until 14 January 1984 when you were apprehended by
civil authorities. During this period of UA you were declared a
deserter. On 8 February 1984 you submitted a written request for
an other than honorable discharge in order to avoid trial by
court-martial for the foregoing period of UA totalling 961 days.
Prior to submitting this request you conferred with a qualified
military lawyer at which time you were advised of your rights and
warned of the probable adverse consequences of accepting such a
discharge. Subsequently, your request was granted and the
commanding officer was directed to issue you an other than
honorable discharge by reason of the good of the service. 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. On 29 February 1984 you
were issued an other than honorable discharge.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth and desire to upgrade your discharge. It also
considered your assertion that you were only UA and not the
subject of any other misconduct. Nevertheless, the Board
concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant
recharacterization of your discharge because of the seriousness
of your repetitive and lengthy periods of UA from the Marine
Corps, which resulted in NUP, SPCM, and your request for
discharge. The Board believed that considerable clemency was
extended to you when your request for discharge to avoid trial by
court-martial was approved. Further, the Board concluded that
you received the benefit of your bargain with the Marine Corps
when your request for discharge was granted and you should not be

permitted to change it now. 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,

Parade

Executive

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03289-09

    Original file (03289-09.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. 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 request for _ discharge was granted and on 14 March 1980, you received an other than...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10625-09

    Original file (10625-09.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. 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 | CY2010 | 05196-09

    Original file (05196-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, congidered your application on 31 March 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. On 1 March 1985 you submitted a written request for an other than honorable (OTH) discharge in order to avoid trial by court- Martial for the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10616-09

    Original file (10616-09.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 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 | CY2009 | 03059-09

    Original file (03059-09.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. Your request for discharge was granted and you received an other than honorable discharge for the good of service on 2 October 1981. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of your misconduct that resulted...

  • 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 | CY2008 | 03678-08

    Original file (03678-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 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 | CY2012 | 00309 12

    Original file (00309 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 3 October 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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of your conviction by...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 00173 12

    Original file (00173 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 16 October 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 | CY2009 | 11168-09

    Original file (11168-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 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 policied. AS a result, on 27 August 1984, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for...