Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01922-10
Original file (01922-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 REC
Docket No: 01922-10
18 November 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 17 November 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 the evidence submitted was insufficient
to establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice,

You enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active
duty on 4 September 1973. On 21 January 1974, you were convicted
in the Onslow County Court of North Carolina of possession oe
marijuana. You were sentenced to a fine of $200, six months
confinement, and two years probation. On 22 April 1974, you
received nonjudicial punishment (NIP) for being absent from your
appointed place of duty. On 7 July and 12 November 1974, you
received NJP’s for failure to obey a lawful order. On 19 January
1975, you received NUP for being too intoxicated to perform your
duties. On 29 July 1975, you received NIP for being in an
unauthorized absence status on two occasions. You submitted a
request for a good of the service discharge to avoid trial by
court-martial for failure to obey a lawful order, and
communicating a threat to a fellow Marine. 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 commanding officer forwarded his recommendation that you be
discharged under other than honorable (OTH) conditions for the
good of the service to avoid trial by court=martial. Your
request for discharge was granted and on 7 October 1975, you
received an OTH discharge for the good of the service in lieu of
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.
At that time you were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.

 

The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, conduct
and performance, and overall record of service. Nevertheless,
,the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant
changing the reason or characterization of your discharge, given
_your record of. misconduct, and the fact that you were counseled
* and ‘warned:ofttthe consequences of further misconduct. The Board
also concluded 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. 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,

W. DEAN PFHIF
Executive oO

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 02723-11

    Original file (02723-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 January 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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of your misconduct,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06650-10

    Original file (06650-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 March 2011. 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 17 July 1975, you submitted a request for a good of the service discharge to avoid trial by court-martial for being UA a total of 79 days.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06011-09

    Original file (06011-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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 | CY2010 | 06004-10

    Original file (06004-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 March 2011. 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 | 13262-10

    Original file (13262-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 March 2011. 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. As a result, on 10 February 1975, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09068-10

    Original file (09068-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 May 2011. 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. Your request for discharge was granted and on 7 November 1975, you received an OTH discharge for the good of the service.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08088-09

    Original file (08088-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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 | CY2008 | 09370-08

    Original file (09370-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting:in executive session, considered your — application on 13 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. entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10909-10

    Original file (10909-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 July 2011. You then requested an under conditions other than honorable (OTH) discharge for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial for a period of UA totaling 226 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 | 03027-10

    Original file (03027-10.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. AS & result, on 19 March 1975, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable discharge in order to avoid trial by court- martial for the three foregoing periods of UA totalling 376 days. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is...