DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TOR
Docket No: 5792-09
24 May 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 18 May 2010. The names and votes of the
members of the panel wiil 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
injustice.
You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 18 September 1969 at age 1”
and served for a year without disciplinary incident. However, on
16 September 1970, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for
disobedience.
During the five day period from 24 to 19 April 1971 you were in
an unauthorized absence (UA) status. However, the record does
not reflect the disciplinary action taken for this misconduct.
Shortly thereafter, on 18 May 1971, you began another period of
UA that was not terminated until you were apprehended and
confined by civil authorities on a charge of robbery. As a
resuit of this action, on 27 January 1972, you were convicted by
civil authorities of robbery and sentenced to confinement for two
to five years.
Subsequently, while in the custody of civil authorities, you were
processed for an administrative separation action by reason of
misconduct. After waiving your procedural right to consult with
legal counsel and to present your case to an administrative
discharge board, the discharge authority directed your commanding
officer to issue you an other than honorable discharge by reason
of misconduct, and on 14 March 1973, you were 80 discharged.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth, desire to upgrade your discharge, and assertion that
you believe your discharge was too harsh. Nevertheless, the
Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant
recharacterization of your discharge because of the seriousness
of your misconduct in both the military and civilian communities.
Further, you were given an opportunity to defend yourself, but
waived your procedural right to present your case to an
administrative discharge board. 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,
\No- SR
W. DEAN PFE
Executive Di
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02317-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 February 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. You served without disciplinary infraction until 5 March 1979, when you began a period of unauthorized absence (UA) that was not terminated...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00019-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 September 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 14 May 1974, you were returned to military authority by the Allegheny County Jail, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06453-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 February 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. the disciplinary action taken, paygrade E-l and a $50 forfeiture of However, the record does not reflect if any, for these periods of UA. Consequently, when...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03204-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 March 2010. Shortly thereafter, on 19 December 1973, you began another period of UA that was not terminated until you were apprehended by civil authorities and charged with armed robbery. On 6 March 1974, while in custody of civil authorities, you were you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to the civil conviction.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08387-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 June 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, arid policies. Your request for discharge was granted and on 3 May 1971, you received an other than honorable discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07236-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 May 2010. 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 applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03152-01
your application, thereof, your naval record, and policies. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of together with all material submitted in support and applicable statutes, regulations, A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 February 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this After careful and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08643-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 June 2002. On 6 October 1977 an ADB recommended an other than honorable discharge by reasion of misconduct due to civil conviction. 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11222-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 September 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 13 January 1971 you submitted a written request for an other than honorable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08098-07
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your late father’s naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. On 18 March 1946 he was convicted by civil authorities of robbery and sentenced to an unspecified period of confinement. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...