Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03685-10
Original file (03685-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

 

TOR
Docket No: 3685-10
9 February 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 8 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 15 March 1973 at age 17 and
began a period of active duty on lz July 1973. You served
without disciplinary incident until 1 April 1974, when you
received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for a 27 day period of
unauthorized absence (UA). The punishment imposed was a $300
forfeiture of pay and correctional custody for 30 days. Shortly
thereafter, on 29 May 1974, you began a period of UA that was not
terminated until you were apprehended by Civil authorities on 2
November 1974. Although you were declared a deserter during this

period, only the UA charges were referred for trial.

 

As a result of the foregoing, on 18 December 1974, you submitted
a written request for an other than honorable discharge in order
to avoid trial by court-martial for the foregoing period of UA
totalling 158 days. Prior to submitting this request you
conferred with a qualified military lawyer at which time you were
advised of your rights and warned of the probable adverse
consequences of accepting such a discharge. Subsequently, your
request was granted and the commanding officer was directed to
issue you an other than honorable discharge by reason of the good
of the service. 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. On 7
January 1975 you were issued an other than honorable discharge.

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 assertions of alcoholism, family problems, and
not being afforded assistance in obtaining a hardship discharge.
Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not
sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge
because of the seriousness of your lengthy period of UA from the
Marine Corps, which also resulted in your request for discharge.
The Board believed that considerable clemency was extended to you
when your request for discharge to avoid trial by court-martial
was approved. Further, the Board concluded that you received the
benefit of your bargain with the Marine Corps when your request
for discharge was granted and you should not be permitted to
Change it now. Finally, there is no evidence in the record, and
you provided none, to support your assertions. 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 te 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 doo

W. DEAN P
Executive \Dy tpr

Similar Decisions

  • 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05238-08

    Original file (05238-08.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. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09060-07

    Original file (09060-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 November 2008. 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 | CY2006 | 06326-06

    Original file (06326-06.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 establishthe existence of probable material error or injustice.You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 21 December 1972 at age 17. As a result, on 12 February 1974, you...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR7897 13

    Original file (NR7897 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 26 August 2014. . As a result of these periods of UA totalling 182 days, on 2 May 1974, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02477-08

    Original file (02477-08.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 February 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. 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 | 11685-10

    Original file (11685-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 August 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 | CY2006 | 01155-07

    Original file (01155-07.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 30 July 1973 at age 17. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07199-10

    Original file (07199-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 April 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 18 June 1974, you received an OTH discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 00910-05

    Original file (00910-05.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-merniber panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 October 2005. 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. You were in a UA status again from 7 April to 8 May 1973 and as a result on 30 May 1973 you received nonjudicial punishment for a 31 day period of UA.