Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10187-09
Original file (10187-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

 

SON
Docket No: 10187-09
22 July 2010

 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to 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 20 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 enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on

18 August 1999. The Board found that you submitted a written
request for an other than honorable (OTH) discharge in order to
avoid trial by court-martial for a 75 day period of unauthorized
absence (UA). Prior to submitting this request for discharge,
you conferred with a qualified military lawyer, were advised of
your rights, and were warned of the probable adverse consequences
of accepting such a discharge. ‘Subsequently, your request for
discharge was granted and on 7 December 2000, you received an

OTH discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. At that time,
you were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code. 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 desire to change your RE-4 reenlistment code.
Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not
sufficient to warrant such a change of your RE-4 reenlistment
given your period of UA that lasted over two months. 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.

The Board did not consider whether to upgrade your discharge or
change the reason for separation because you did not request such
action, and you have not exhausted your administrative remedy by
applying to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB). You may
apply to NDRB by submitting the attached DD Form 293.

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,
\ ord 1

W. DEAN P
Executive r&adtor

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06038-10

    Original file (06038-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 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. 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 | CY2010 | 04326-10

    Original file (04326-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01867-10

    Original file (01867-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 November 2010. You later requested an under conditions other than honorable (OTH) discharge for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial for a UA totaling 242 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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11060-09

    Original file (11060-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 July 2010. The Board found that you entered active duty in the Navy on 26 July 1974 and were honorably discharged on 1 June 1978. You then requested an other than honorable (OTH) discharge for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial for three periods of UA totaling 64 days.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08964-09

    Original file (08964-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panei of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 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. Further, the Board concluded that you received the benefit of your bargain with the Marine Corps when your request for discharge was granted.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03441-08

    Original file (03441-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 January 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. On 9 December 1992, the separation authority approved the discharge recommendation, but the separation action was subsequently suspended due to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 02529-10

    Original file (02529-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 December 2010. You submitted a request for a good of the service discharge to avoid trial by court-martial for the period of UA. Your request for discharge was granted and on 27 February 1975, you received an OTH discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09498-09

    Original file (09498-09.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. The Board believes that you may be eligible for veterans’ benefits which accrued during your prior period of honorable service. 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 | CY2009 | 07610-09

    Original file (07610-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 April 2010. The Board found that you entered active duty in the Navy on 15 July 1986. 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 | CY2010 | 07959-10

    Original file (07959-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 March 2010. On 15 August 2005, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable (OTH) discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial. As a result of this action on 2 November 2005 you were discharged under OTH conditions.