Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03726-10
Original file (03726-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

 

TAL
Docket No: 3726-10
14 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 12 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 Navy and began a period of active duty on

10 August 1978 at age 18. On 28 July 1969, you were in an
unauthorized absence (UA) status from your unit for a period of
242 days, until you were apprehended by civil authorities in
Arlington, Texas, for unpaid traffic tickets and returned to
military control on 30 October 1979. On 17 December 1979, you
were UA from your unit for a period of two days until you
surrendered on 18 December 1979. On 5 February 1980, you were UA
from your unit for a period of six days until you surrendered on
11 February 1980. On 16 February 1980 you were UA from your unit
for a period of 81 days, until you were apprehended by civil
authorities on 8 May 1980. On 9 May 1980, you were again UA from
your unit for a period of two days until you surrendered on

11 May 1980. Based on the information currently contained in
your record it appears that you submitted a written request for
an other than honorable (OTH) discharge in order to avoid trial
by court-martial for the foregoing periods of UA. 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. On 20 June 1980, your request was granted and you
were separated with an OTH discharge. 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 gntire record and application
careful y weighed 2 ecora of cer mitigating factors, such as
your yquth, overall fecord of service, and desire to upgrade your
dischatge. Neverthefless,#the Board concluded these factors were
not sufficient to warrant’ recharacterization of your discharge
given the seriousness | your misconduct that resulted in periods
of UA that totaled overfil months and 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. Finally, the Board concluded that you received the
benefit of your bargain with the Navy 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,

Executive

   
 

or

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04602-09

    Original file (04602-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 March 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08466-10

    Original file (08466-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 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. 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 | CY2011 | 00595-11

    Original file (00595-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 October 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 | CY2012 | 00381-12

    Original file (00381-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 September 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. On 29 October 1982, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable (OTH) discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01353-10

    Original file (01353-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 November 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 12 November 1985, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable (OTH) discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04352-11

    Original file (04352-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 February 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR2755-13

    Original file (NR2755-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 February 2014. 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 | 02401-07

    Original file (02401-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 March 2008. Subsequently, your request for discharge was granted, and on 3 April 1980 you received an other than honorable discharge in lieu of 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 injustice.Sincerely,W.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04040-11

    Original file (04040-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 February 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02131-01

    Original file (02131-01.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. On 28 June 1979 you During the period from 22 July 1979 to 26 August 1980 you were in a UA status on five occasions for a total of 272 days. materials submitted were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your lengthy periods of UA, and your request for...