DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BUG
Docket No: 1695-10
20 October 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 19 October 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. You entered active duty in the Marine
Corps on 25 June 1976. You received nonjudicial punishment on
two occasions for unauthorized absence ((UA) four
specifications totaling 12 days), and failure to obey a lawful
order. 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.
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 14 March 1979, you were separated with an
OTH discharge for the good of the service to avoid trial by
court-martial. 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.
The Board, in its review of your entire record, carefully
considered all potential mitigation, such as your youth,
remorse, and post service good conduct. Nevertheless, the
Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to
warrant recharacterization of your discharge due to your
numerous acts of misconduct. Furthermore, the Board believed
that considerable cjemency 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 Marine Corps 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,
uo Fea
W. DEAN PFET
Executive \Di for
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 | 12909-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 August 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. On 22 May 1973, you requested an other than honorable (OTH) discharge for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial for UA (three...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09197-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 May 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 | CY2010 | 01754-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 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 (875 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 | 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 | CY2009 | 08088-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 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. 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 | 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 | 13276-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 September 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 2 December 1983, you requested an other than honorable (OTH) discharge for the good of the service to avoid trial by court- martial for a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06011-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 05729-09
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...