DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TJR
Docket No: 6087-10
24 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 22 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 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 imsullieLent
to establish the existence of probable material error or
injUustLeé:.
You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 11 March 1966 at age 18 and
began a period of active duty. About seven months later, on 27
October 1966, you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM)
of two periods of unauthorized absence (UA) totalling 61 days and
failure to obey a lawful order. On 19 June 1967 and again on 23
August 1968 you received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for absence
from your appointed place of duty and a 10 day period of UA.
On 18 March 1969 you were convicted by special court-martial
(SPCM) of a 136 day period of UA. You were sentenced to
reduction to paygrade E-1, a $140 forfeiture of pay, confinement
at hard labor for four months, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD) .
The BCD was subsequently disapproved at all levels of review.
Nonetheless, you were processed for an administrative separation
by reason of misconduct as evidenced by your record of
misconduct. The separation authority directed your commanding
officer to separate you under other than honorable conditions by
reason of misconduct. On 27 June 1969 you were issued a
Certificate of Discharge or Release from Active Duty (DD Form
214) which reflected “released from active duty under other than
honorable conditions by reason of misconduct.” However, you were
retained until 20 December 1972, at which time you were issued a
general discharge at the expiration of your enlistment.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth and desire to change the characterization of your
general discharge. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these
factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your
discharge because of your repetitive misconduct and lengthy
periods of UA which resulted in two NUPs and two courts-martial.
Finally, the Board concluded that you were fortunate to have
received a discharge under honorable conditions with having such
an extensive record of misconduct. 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,
\pQan
W. DEAN PF
Executive D or
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11000-10
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 1 April 1968 you received your third NUP for two periods of absence from your appointed place of duty. 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 | 05129-10
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. Cofisequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08600-06
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 July 2007. your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Nevertheless, on 17 November 1969 you received your sixth NUP for failure to obey a lawful order and were awarded restriction and extra duty for 14 days. The record further reflects that on 1...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04679-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 March 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. 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 | CY2008 | 03697-08
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 25 March 1976, you received an other than honorable discharge for the good of the service 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10044-06
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 April 2007. your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Regarding your contentions, amnesty is not applicable in your case, and even though you were a sole surviving son, you voluntarily enlisted at the age of 17 with parental consent. ...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 02157-10
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 30 January 1969, shortly after being released from confinement, you began another period of UA that was not terminated until you were apprehended on 8 April 1969, On 19 May 1969 you were again UA for a three day. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05093-10
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. On 11 January 1966, you received NUP for being UA.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10982-10
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. As a result, on 27 January 1971, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09486-08
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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...