DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BAN
Docket No: 09191-09
7 July 2010
Dear SN inci megpis
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 1 July 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 had prior military service from 1965 to 1968, in which you
received an honorable discharge. On 31 July 1968, you reenlisted
in the Navy, and served without disciplinary incident until 13
January 1969, when you received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for
an unauthorized absence (UA). Shortly thereafter, you were in in
a UA status from 22 June 1970 to 26 March 1971. Therefore, you
were pending a court-martial for charges of UA. However, you
requested through counsel, to be separated to escape a trial by
court-martial. Therefore, on 29 June 1971, you were separated
with an other than honorable discharge and an RE-4 reenlistment
code, in lieu of a 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 entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth and belief that enough time has elapsed to warrant
upgrading your discharge. Nevertheless, the Board concluded
these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization
of your discharge because of the seriousness of your misconduct.
Further, there is no provision of law or in regulations that
allow for recharacterization of service due solely to the passage
of time. Finally, the Board believed that considerable clemency
was extended to you when your request for discharge to avoid
trial by court-martial was approved. It was clear to the Board
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,
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 | CY2009 | 11610-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 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 | CY2009 | 10493-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 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. 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 | 10686-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 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. On 15 December 1970, you submitted a written request to be discharged for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial for the periods of UA.
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 | CY2001 | 06786-01
At the time of your reenlistment, you had completed The record reflects that you were authorized the Vietnam Service Medal for service on board the USS MEREDITH (DD 890). On 8 October 1971 you requested for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial for those two periods of UA totaling about 113 days. insufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your record of an NJP, and the fact that you accepted discharge rather than face trial by court-martial for a UA of more...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 06760-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, gitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 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, and policies. On 11 August 1971 you submitted a written request for an other than honorable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for three periods of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04903-01
Your allegations of error and 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 were sentenced to confinement at hard labor On 30 January 1970 you were convicted by SPCM of a 99 day period of UA and were sentenced to confinement at hard labor for a month, restriction for a month, and an $80 forfeiture of pay. submitted a written request for an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01298-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 December 2009. , 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 of injustice. Your request for discharge was granted and on 19 December 1972, you received an other than honorable discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10974-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 October 2003. On 24 June 1968 you were convicted by SCM of a 15 day period of UA and sentenced to a $65 forfeiture of pay and confinement at hard labor for 30 days. 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.