DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BIG
Docket No: 12668-09
24 August 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 24 August 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 that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice. The Board found that you entered active
duty in the Navy on 22 May 1975. You received nonjudicial
punishment on three occasions for unauthorized absence ( (UA)
two specifications totaling six days), larceny (a magazine
valued at $.55}), and failure to obey a lawful order. On 27
July 1976, you requested an other than honorable (OTH)
discharge for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-
martial for a UA (154 days). At that time, you consulted with
qualified military counsel and acknowledged the adverse
‘consequences of receiving such a discharge. The separation
authority approved your request for an OTH discharge. On 30
July 1976, you were separated with an OTH discharge for the
good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial. Asa
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, carefully
considered all potential mitigation, such as your youth, and
desire for benefits. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that
these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization
of your discharge due to your serious misconduct. Furthermore,
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 also 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. In view of the above, 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,
W. DEAN PF
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09406-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 June 2010. On 1 March 1976, you requested an other than honorable (OTH) discharge for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial for a UA totaling 62 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 | 12651-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 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 | 10655-09
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. 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 | 08933-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 June 2010. You submitted a written request for an other than honorable (OTH) discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for the foregoing periods of UA totaling 173 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 | CY2010 | 01695-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 October 2010. You later requested an other than honorable (OTH) discharge for the good of the service to avoid trial by court- martial for a UA (334 days) which ended with your apprehension. 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 | 01867-10
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 | CY2010 | 00356-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 September 2010. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08964-09
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 | 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 | CY2009 | 10677-09
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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...