Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03451-10
Original file (03451-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

    

— SIN: tix
Docket No: 3451-10

11. February 2011

=e y

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 9 February 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 30 January 1973 at age 20 and
began a period of active duty on 15 February 1973. You served
without disciplinary incident until 17 July 1973, when you
received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for a two day period of
unauthorized absence (UA). On 17 December 1973 you received NUP
for an eight day period of UA.

During the period from 28 February to 6 May 1974 you received NJP
on three more occasions for three periods of UA totalling 36 days
and breaking restriction. On 11 November 1974 you were convicted
by special court-martial (SPCM) of a 127 day period of UA and
sentenced to confinement at hard labor for three months and a
$450 forfeiture of pay.

On 6 February 1975 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). On 20 March
1975 you received your sixth NUP for absence from your appointed
place of duty and were awarded extra duty for seven days. On 24
April 1975 an ADB recommended discharge under other than

honorable conditions by reason of unfitness due to frequent

involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities.
Subsequently, your commanding officer, in concurrence with the
ADB, also recommended discharge under other than honorable
conditions by reason of unfitness. On 9 May 1975 the discharge
authority approved ,these recommendations and directed your

: ‘ vf ; ;
‘commanding officer’ to issue you an other than honorable discharge

by reason of unfitness, “and on 27 May 1975, you were so
discharged.

The Board, in ifs 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 racism. Nevertheless, the Board

concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant
recharacterization of your discharge because of the seriousness
of your repetitive and lengthy periods of UA from the Marine
Corps which resulted in six NJPs and a SPCM. Finally, there is
no evidence in the record, and you submitted none, to support
your assertion of racism. 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,

\s Deas

W. DEAN P R
Executive réetor

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09388-07

    Original file (09388-07.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. Subsequently, 2 September 1975, an ADB recommended discharge under honorable conditions by reason of unfitness due to frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 01172-07

    Original file (01172-07.rtf) 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.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 23 May 1972 at age 18. On 19 September 1973 you were again...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06887-06

    Original file (06887-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 March 2007. 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 | CY2007 | 11117-07

    Original file (11117-07.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 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 | CY2012 | 07448-12

    Original file (07448-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 June 2013. 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 10 May 1975, you were counseled regarding your frequent involvement with military authorities and warned that further misconduct could result in...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03780-07

    Original file (03780-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 February 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 | CY2007 | 08033-07

    Original file (08033-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2005 | 03286-05

    Original file (03286-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, advisory opinion, 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 17 December 1973 at age 17 with parental...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4905 13

    Original file (NR4905 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 April 2014. 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 applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02007-08

    Original file (02007-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 March 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. However, due to the lac™ of documented counseling required to separate under other than honorable conditions, the discharge authority directed that...