Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03737-10
Original file (03737-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

 

TAL
Docket Neo: 3737-16
14 January 2011

This ig in reference to your application for correction of your
late husband's 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 12 January 2011. 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 deceased husband’s 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.

Your husband enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of
active duty on 11 May 1973 at age 18. On 16 July 1973, he
received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for failure to obey a
lawful order given by a superior noncommissioned officer. On

2 October 1973, he received NUP for larceny of 10 eight track
tapes, taken from a fellow Sailor's wall locker, valued at $70.
On 21 November 1973, he received NUP for failure to obey a lawful
order from a superior noncommissioned officer. On 6 December
1973, he received NUP for failure to obey a lawful order from a
superior officer and disobeying a lawful written order by
wrongfully possessing and drinking of alcoholic beverages in the
barracks. On 29 March 1974, he was convicted by special court-
martial (SPCM) of two instances of unauthorized absence (UA) from
his unit totaling a period of 55 days. The sentence imposed was
Five months confinement, forfeiture of pay and a bad conduct
discharge (BCD). On 24 July 1975, he received the BCD after
appellate review was complete.

The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as his youth, and
overall record of service. Nevertheless, the Board found that
these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization
of his discharge given the seriousness of his misconduct that
resulted in four NJPs, one SPCM conviction and a period of UA
totaling 55 days. 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
Boar reconsider its gecision upon submission of new and material
evidence or other matter foot 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.
Confequently, 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,

Vp eaten,
Executive e r

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06287-10

    Original file (06287-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 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. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given the seriousness of your...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02609-09

    Original file (02609-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 February 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 10 October 1962, you received NJP for UA from your unit.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05796-10

    Original file (05796-10.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. On 14 June 1979, you received NUP for being disrespectful toward you a chief petty officer on two occasions, and failure to obey a written regulation. On 17 February 1983, after appellate review, you received the BCD.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04389-09

    Original file (04389-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all Material submitted in support thereof, your late husband’s naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. About six months later, on 8 January 1969, he received NUP for a nine 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 | CY2010 | 07446-10

    Original file (07446-10.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. 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 | 02100-09

    Original file (02100-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 December 2009. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all materiai 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 03805-10

    Original file (03805-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 January 2011.° 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,...