Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10616-09
Original file (10616-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

 

TIR
Docket No: 10616-0609
29 July 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 27 July 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
injustice.

You reenlisted in the Marine Corps on 2 February 1984 after four
years of prior honorable service. You continued to serve without
disciplinary incident until 15 October 1984, when you received
nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for a two day period of unauthorized
absence (UA). About a month later, on 26 November 1984, you were
convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of a 31 day period of
UA.

On 24 January 1985 you received NUP for a one day period of UA
and were awarded restriction for 14 days and a $100 forfeiture of
pay. Less than two months later, on 2 March 1985, you began
another period of UA that was not terminated until 21 July 1985.
During this period you were declared a deserter, and the UA
charges were referred for trial by court-martial. On 15 August
1985, after undergoing a psychiatric evaluation for suicide
attempts, you were diagnosed with an adjustment disorder and
depression. At that time you were placed on a 24 hour
observation/suicide precaution watch.
Subsequently, 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 146 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. In September 1985 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 12 September 1985
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, while serving in the Marine
Corps, you were temporarily insane and experienced suicidal and
homicidal ideation. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these
factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your
discharge because of the seriousness of your repetitive
misconduct which resulted in two NJPs and a SCM, and your lengthy
period of UA from the Marine Corps, which resulted in 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,

Vaan’

W. DEAN P
Executive Diréctor

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03851-11

    Original file (03851-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 February 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 | CY2005 | 07800-05

    Original file (07800-05.rtf) 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.The Board found you enlisted in the Marine Corps on 28 September 1982 at age 19. You were...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06460-07

    Original file (06460-07.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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 01307-04

    Original file (01307-04.rtf) 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 that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable materialThe Board found that you enlisted in the Marine Corps on 16 August 1983 at age 17. However, the Board concluded that...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04065-09

    Original file (04065-09.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. Subsequently, the foregoing offenses were referred for court- martial. On 31 March 1986 you submitted a. written request for an other than honorable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for the four periods of UA totalling 29 days.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01915-10

    Original file (01915-10.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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of your four NUP’s, UA's totaling over six months, and request for discharge. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09060-07

    Original file (09060-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 November 2008. 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...

  • 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 | 04720-09

    Original file (04720-09.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 April 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 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10710-10

    Original file (10710-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your , application on 10 August 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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of your misconduct...