Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04704-10
Original file (04704-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

 

TUR
Docket No: 4704-10
2 March 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 1 March 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 te 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

in usiLied.

You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 27 June 1972 at age 18 and
served about three months without disciplinary incident.
However, during the period from 31 October 1972 to 3 December
1973, you were in an unauthorized absence (UA) status on seven
occasions for a total of 90 days. As a result you received
nonjudicial punishment (NUP) on three occasions and were
convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) and special court-
martial (SPCM).

During the period from 14 February to 1 October 1974 you received
NIP on five more occasions for five periods of UA totalling 46
days. Shortly thereafter, on 4 October 1974, you were notified
ef pending administrative separation action by reason of
unfitness. At that time you waived your right to consult with
legal counsel and to present your case to an administrative
discharge board (ADB). On 1l October 1974 your commanding
officer recommended discharge under other than honorable
conditions by reason of unfitness as evidenced by eight NJUPs,

SCM, and SPCM. On 15 November 1974 the discharge authority
approved this recommendation and directed your commanding officer
to issue you an other than honorable discharge by reason of
unfitness, and on 21 November 1974 you were so discharged.

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 assertion that your discharge was extreme since
you “made up almost all of the lost time” and as such should have
been discharged with an honorable characterization of service.
Nevertheless, the Boardycoflcluded these factors were not
sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge

because of t seriousness of your repetitive and lengthy periods
iof UA which resulted in eight NJPs and two court-martial
convictions. Further, you were given an opportunity to defend

yourself, but waived your procedural right to present your case
to an ADB. Finally, there is no evidence in the record, and you
submitted none, to support your assertion. 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 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,

\ Det

W. DEAN P
Executive

 
  
 

 

Or

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03451-10

    Original file (03451-10.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 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 | 00083-11

    Original file (00083-11.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 23 March 1972, you received NUP for being UA for four days. 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 | CY2007 | 09595-07

    Original file (09595-07.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 21 December 1966 at age 17. The punishment imposed was...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10254-10

    Original file (10254-10.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 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 | CY2010 | 02638-10

    Original file (02638-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 January 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. Further, Marines with an extensive record of misconduct, such as yours, who are discharged by reason of unfitness normally receive discharges...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR5909 13

    Original file (NR5909 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 11 June 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 | CY2010 | 06184-10

    Original file (06184-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 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. However, the record does not reflect the disciplinary action taken, if any, for this misconduct.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 12499 11

    Original file (12499 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 October 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 | CY2012 | 08056 12

    Original file (08056 12.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. After waiving your procedural right to consult with legal counsel and to present your case to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06969-08

    Original file (06969-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 May 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...