Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04651-10
Original file (04651-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

Docket No: 4651-10
31 January 2011

 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 18, 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 26 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
Lnjustice.

You enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active
duty on 19 January 1982 at age 19. You received nonjudicial
punishment (NJP) on two occasions for two instances of
unauthorized absence (UA) from your unit for a period totaling

16 days, disobeying a lawful order, disobeying a regulation by
smoking in your rack and failure to go to your appointed place of
duty. On 10 August 1982 you made a written request for discharge
for the good of service to avoid court-martial for charges of UA
from your unit for a period of seven days, five instances of
failure to go to your appointed place of duty at the time
prescribed, disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer,
failure to obey a lawful order from a superior officer, two
instances of insubordinate conduct toward a superior
noncommissioned officer, damage to government property and breach
of peace. 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 or
accepting such a discharge. Your request was granted and the
commanding officer directed your 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. On 1 September 1982, you were
discharged under OTH conditions.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth and overall record of service. Nevertheless, the
Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant

‘ recharacterizatign of your discharge given the seriousness of
your misconduct that resulted in two NUPs 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. Further, the Board concluded that
you received the benefit of your bargain with the Marine Corps
when your request for discharge was granted and should not be
permitted to change it now. Finally, there is no provision of
law or in Navy regulations that allows for the recharacterization
of service due solely to the passage of time. 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,

Similar Decisions

  • 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 | 10774-10

    Original file (10774-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 June 2011. On 28 January 1974 you submitted a written request for an other than honorable (OTH) discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for four instances of failure to go to your appointed place of duty, insubordinate conduct toward a superior noncommissioned officer, escaping from arrest, damage of government property, and two instances of assault. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 05842 11

    Original file (05842 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 7 March 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 | CY2010 | 05832-10

    Original file (05832-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 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 | 07395-10

    Original file (07395-10.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. Documentary material considered by together with all the Board consisted of your application, 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 | 05371-10

    Original file (05371-10.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 February 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 polieLes:. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08336-10

    Original file (08336-10.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 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. You were counseled and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00132-11

    Original file (00132-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 September 2011. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with ail material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, reguiations, and policies. On 20 February 1975, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable (OTH) discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07322-10

    Original file (07322-10.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. On 17 May 1978 you made a written request for discharge for the good of service to avoid court-martial for the foregoing periods of UA. *Further, the Board concluded that you received the benefit of your bargain with the Marine Corps when your request for discharge was granted and should...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3342-13

    Original file (NR3342-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    1980, you made a written request for an other _ than honorable (OTH) discharge to-avoid trial by court-martial for three instances of UA from your unit for a period totaling 30 days, failure to go to you appointed place of duty, . ‘The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as recharacterization of your. when your request for.