DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TOR
Docket No: 2638-10
26 January 2011
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 19 January 2011. 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 29 November 1966 at age 17
and served about eight months without disciplinary incident.
However, on 15 August 1967, you received nonjudicial punishment
(NIP) for absence from your appointed place of duty. About six
months later, on 15 February 1968, you received NJP for
misbehavior as a sentinel.
During the period from 25 July 1969 to 10 March 1970 you received
NIP on three more occasions for three periods of unauthorized
absence (UA) totalling 29 days and absence from your appointed
place of duty. On 13 April 1970, while serving the Republic of
Vietnam (RVN), you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM)
of a three day period UA and absence from your appointed place of
duty. Shortly thereafter, on 5 May 1970, you were convicted by
summary court-martial (SCM) of absence from your appointed place
of duty.
Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative
separation action by reason of unfitness due to frequent
involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities.
After consulting with legal counsel, you elected to present your
case to an administrative discharge board (ADB). An ADB
recommended discharge under honorable conditions by reason of
unfitness due to frequent involvement of a discreditable nature
with military authorities. Your commanding officer, in
concurrence with the ADB, also recommended discharge under
onorable conditions by reason of unfitness. The discharge
authority approved these recommendations and directed your
-commanding officer to issue you a general discharge under
honorable conditions by reason of unfitness, and on 24 July 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, service in RVN, desire to upgrade your discharge, and
the passage of time. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these
factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your
discharge because of the seriousness of your repetitive
misconduct which resulted in five NJPs and two court-martial
convictions during a time of war. Further, Marines with an
extensive record of misconduct, such as yours, who are discharged
by reason of unfitness normally receive discharges under other
than honorable conditions, and as such, you were fortunate to
receive a general discharge. Finally, no discharge is upgraded
due solely to the passage of time. 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,
ly Denes
W. DEAN PF
Executive regtior
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11280-10
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 3 May 19971 the discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed your commanding officer to issue you an other than honorable discharge by reason of unfitness due to drug abuse, and on 18 May 1971, you were so discharged. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08013-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 October 2008. 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 | 10254-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 July 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 | CY2009 | 07490-09
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. The record does not reflect the disciplinary action taken, if any, for this 56 day period of UA. 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 | CY2007 | 11345-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 November 2008. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02044-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 August 2000. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. on 9 March 1969, you were On 15 December 1969 you received NJP for a two pay period punishment imposed was restriction for seven days and You were sentenced...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04701-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 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 | CY2004 | 09154-04
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 13 July 1970 at age 17 and served for a year without disciplinary...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07898-09
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient 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 error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 12499 11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 October 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...