DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TIR
Docket No: 13129-09
8 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 7 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 enlisted in the Marine Corps on 27 December 1967 at age 18.
You served without disciplinary incident until February 1969,
when you received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for misbehavior as
a sentinel as evidenced by sleeping on post. About four months
later, on 28 June 1969, you were convicted by general court-
Martial (GCM) of assault with a deadly weapon (you shot another
Marine in the head), assault and battery (you struck another
Marine in the eye), and two specifications of disobedience (being
in an off-limits area and being outside a military area). You
were sentenced to confinement at hard labor for two years, -
forfeiture of all pay and allowances, reduction to paygrade E-1,
and a dishonorable discharge (DD). On 17 April 1970 the DD was
mitigated to a bad conduct discharge (BCD). Subsequently, the
BCD was approved at all levels of review and on 9 October 1970
you were so discharged.
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 of suffering from post traumatic stress
syndrome (PTSD). Nevertheless, these factors were not sufficient
to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of the
seriousness of your misconduct which caused bodily harm to two of
your fellow Marines. Finally, there is no documented evidence in
the record, and you submitted none, to support your assertion of
suffering from PTSD. 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,
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR8645 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 August 2015. 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 | CY2014 | NR0172 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 October 2014. On 16 May 1969, you were again convicted by SPCM for two instances of UA from your unit totaling a period of 12 days and failure to go to your appointed place of duty. 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 | CY2014 | NR172 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 October 2014. 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 16 May 1969, you were again convicted by SPCM for two instances of UA from your unit totaling a period of 12 days and failure to go to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5593 14_Redacted
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 30} S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 iad: Hoo SEOs Docket No: 5593-14 1° F aya" f 12 February AOL'S RK three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 February 2015. The BCD was approved at all levels of review and on 26 October 1969, you were 50 discharged The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7771 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 July 2015. 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. In your case, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02562-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 July 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. On 22 June 1973 the commanding officer recommended that he be The record reflects that on 14 July 1969 he On 4 February 1970 he was evacuated On 21 September 1972 he was The court sentenced him to five years separated with...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4626 14
A three- member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 April 2015. 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 | 04037-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 August 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. The Board further considered your previous applications with this Board in March 2000 and the Naval Discharge Review Board in December 1984.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR13277 14_Redacted
A three-member’ panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, ‘considered your application on 6 January 2015. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in your case. 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 | CY2008 | 00690-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 November 2008. The BCD was subsequently suspended for six months. 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.