Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04194-10
Original file (04194-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

 

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

BAN
Docket No: 04194-10
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. 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 May 1978, and served
without disciplinary incident until 15 February 1980, when you
received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for unauthorized absence
(UA). Shortly thereafter, you received the following NJP’s: on
27 May 1980, for UA; on 8 December 1980, for failing to obey a
lawful order; on 17 June 1981, for willful disobedience; on 6
July 1981 for assault; and on 5 January 1982, for missing ship’s
movement. In addition, you were in a UA status from 18 January
to 3 May 1982, and were pending a court-martial. However, you
requested through counsel, to be separated to escape a trial by
court-martial. Your request was approved and on 15 June 1982,
you were separated with an other than honorable (OTH) discharge
and an RE-4 reenlistment code, in lieu of a trial by court-
martial. As a result of this action, you were spared the stigma
of court-martial conviction and the potential penalties of a
punitive discharge and confinement at hard labor.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your claim that your lieutenant never told you that your
discharge was without benefits. Nevertheless, the Board
concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant
recharacterization of your discharge because of your repeated
acts of misconduct. Furthermore, the Board believed that
considerable clemency was extended to you when your request for
discharge to avoid trial by court-martial was approved. It was
clear to the Board 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. Accordingly,
your application has been denied. The names and votes of the
members of the panél will be furnished upon request.

Your request to have your social security number corrected on
your DD Form 214 was already corrected on a DD Form 215 on 13
April 1983, (enclosure). Your request to have your address
corrected needs to be sent to Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC)
for an administrative correction, not the Board. Send your
request to HQMC (MMSR), 3280 Russell Road, Quantico, Virginia
22134.

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,

Son QL

W. DEAN PFEI
Executive Di

 

 

Cc

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06325-10

    Original file (06325-10.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. On 18 January 1982, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable (OTH) discharge in order to avoid trial by court- martial for the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11167-10

    Original file (11167-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 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 | 06211-09

    Original file (06211-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 April 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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of your misconduct that...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06982-10

    Original file (06982-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 March 2011. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change to your separation code due to your frequent misconduct. 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 | 12425-10

    Original file (12425-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You now request that the report for 2 October 1980 to 31 January 1981 be modified by addition of the reporting senior’s (RS’s) undated letter, and you again request removing the other two reports. 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, and the Board’s file on your prior case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04332-10

    Original file (04332-10.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. 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 | CY2011 | 00678-11

    Original file (00678-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03758-01

    Original file (03758-01.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. A staff judge advocate reviewed the request and found On 5 October 1982 the You were so discharged on the.-service the Board carefully weighed In its review of your application, all potentially mitigating factors such as your letter in support of your application, your good post-service...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09204-06

    Original file (09204-06.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 establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.On 29 September 1978 you enlisted in the Marine Corps at age 19 and served without incident until 9...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05933-07

    Original file (05933-07.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 7 June 1979 at age 17. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these...