DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TUR
Docket No: 12305-09
3 September 2010
This igs 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 September 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 enlisted in the Navy on 19 April 1976 at age 29 and served
for about five months without disciplinary infraction. However,
during the period from 14 September 1976 to 4 May 1977 you
received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on three occasions for
three periods of unauthorized absence (UA) totalling 28 days and
three periods of absence from your appointed place of duty.
During the period from 9 June 1977 to 17 March 1978 you were
again in a UA status on three more occasions and declared a
deserter. The record reflects that these periods of UA were
referred for court-martial action. On 22 May 1978 you began
another period of UA that was not terminated until 30 May 1978.
However, the record does not reflect the disciplinary action
taken, if any, for this misconduct. However, on 9 June 1978, you
submitted a written request for an other than honorable discharge
in order to avoid trial by court-martial for three periods of UA
totalling 245 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. On 13 June 1978 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 21
June 1978 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, desire to upgrade your discharge, and assertions of
animosity from your superiors, personality conflicts, and being
misinformed regarding the characterization of your discharge.
Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not
sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your other than
honorable discharge because of the seriousness of your frequent,
repetitive, and lengthy periods of UA from the Navy, which
resulted in three NUPs and 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 Navy when your request for
discharge was granted and you should not be permitted to change
it now. Finally, there is no evidence in the record, and you
provided none, to support your assertions. 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,
W
DEAN P
Executive
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06473-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 June 2010. As a result, on 21 March 1978, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for the foregoing three periods of UA totalling 31 days and desertion resulting from a 127 day period of UA. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08742-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 October 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 | CY2008 | 01837-08
You were subsequently assigned to an infantry unit at Camp Pendleton. The Board also 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. 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 | CY2013 | NR3535-13
- 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,. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade your discharge and assertion that you were tpid that your discharge would be upgraded six months after your separation. Consequently, when applying for a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01305-09
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 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 | CY2011 | 05287 11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 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 | CY2009 | 09505-09
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. On 23 August 1978, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable (OTH) discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10943-02
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. Because you requested discharge in lieu of trial, you received the benefit of your bargain when you were discharged and not tried by court-martial, and on 25 August 1978 you received an other than honorable discharge. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08797-07
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 March 1977 you submitted a written request for an other than honorable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for three periods of UA totalling 225 days. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00386-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 October 2011. As a result, on 17 January 1977, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for the three periods of UA totalling 147 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...