Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11079-09
Original file (11079-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

Docket No: 11079-09
10 December 2009 —

 

 

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.

R three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 9 December 2009. 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. In this regard, the Board substantially concurred
with the comments contained in the advisory opinion.

You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 19 September 1988, at the age
of 18. On 31 March 1989, you began a period of unauthorized
absence (UA) which ended when you returned on 24 August 1989,
totaling 147 days. On 20 September 1989, your Commanding Officer
submitted his request to administratively discharge you.
Subsequently, on 22 September 1989, you submitted a written
request to be separated in order to avoid trial by court-martial
for the period of UA. Prior to submitting this request for
discharge, you conferred with a qualified military lawyer, were
advised of your rights, and warned of the probable adverse
consequences of accepting such a discharge. Your request for
discharge was granted and you received a general discharge in
lieu of trial by court-martial on 29 September 1989.' 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. You were notified that you would
receive a reenlistment code of RE-4 for your pattern of

misconduct upon your separation. You were so discharged on 13
October 1989.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth and immaturity. However, the Board found that these
factors were not sufficient to warrant any change in your RE-4
‘reenlistment code or character of service, given your record of
your misconduct. The Board also noted that you were fortunate to
receive a general discharge since a discharge under other than
honorable conditions is often directed when an individual is
found to have committed misconduct. 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,

Executive\ Ii cor

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08492-08

    Original file (08492-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 May 2009. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval health record, 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 | 06467-08

    Original file (06467-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board: consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your daughter’s 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 served without disciplinary incident until 15 July 1989, when you received...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02024-08

    Original file (02024-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07480-09

    Original file (07480-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 June 2009. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your daughter’s 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 | CY2009 | 00389-09

    Original file (00389-09.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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of your misconduct that resulted in periods of UA totaling over three months, and your request for discharge. - _ Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04540-11

    Original file (04540-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09615-08

    Original file (09615-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 August 2009. Your request for discharge was granted and on 26 January 1990, you received an other than honorable discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. 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 | 00451-09

    Original file (00451-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 13039-09

    Original file (13039-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 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 | 03144-09

    Original file (03144-09.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 January 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...