Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06774-10
Original file (06774-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

TIR
Docket No: 6774-10
22 April 2011

 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, Dated
States Code, Section 1552.

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

Bfter 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 25 July 1976 at age 19 and
served for nearly a year without disciplinary infraction.
However, on 21 June 1977, you received nonjudicial punishment
(NOP) for absence from your appointed place of duty.

During the period from 27 January to 26 December 1978 you
received NJP on three more occasions for 14 specifications of
intent to defraud, two specifications of failure to obey a lawful
order, and absence from your appointed place of duty. On 18
March and again on 13 September 1978 you received NJP for failure
to go to your appointed place of duty, disrespect, and

disobedience.

On 24 January 1980 you began a period of unauthorized absence
(UA) that was not terminated until you were apprehended on 18
June 1980. During this period you were also declared a deserter,
however, only the charge of UA was referred for court-martial.

As a result, on 12 August 1980, you submitted a written request
for an other than honorable discharge in order to avoid trial by
court-martial for the foregoing period of UA totalling 146 days.
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 of accepting such a
discharge. Subsequently, your request was granted and the
commanding officer was directed to issue you an other than
honorable discharge by reason of the good of the service. Asa
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 25 August 1980 you
ae

were issyedan other than honorable discharge.

st hen
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. Nevertheless,
the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant
recharacterization of your discharge because of the seriousness
of your misconduct which resulted in six NUPs and your 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 you should not be
permitted to change it now. 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,
W. DEAN PFROSFPFER
Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08151-01

    Original file (08151-01.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. During this period of UA you also broke Subsequently, you submitted a written request for an undesirable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for the two periods of UA totalling 363 days. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 01351 12

    Original file (01351 12.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 December 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 | 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 | CY2010 | 10229-10

    Original file (10229-10.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. 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 reenlisted in the Marine Corps on 25 February 1975 after nearly two years and eight months of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06128-08

    Original file (06128-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 March 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01699-01

    Original file (01699-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your nava.l record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Your record reflects that on 25 April 1974 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for a three day period of unauthorized absence (UA) and were awarded a reduction in rank. On 21 March 1978 you discharge authority denied this request.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05223-00

    Original file (05223-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 January 2001. Board found the evidence and materials submitted were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given the lengthy periods of UA and your request for discharge to avoid trial for these periods of UA. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07596-07

    Original file (07596-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 June 2008. 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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of the seriousness of your...

  • 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 | CY2010 | 11487-10

    Original file (11487-10.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. Bfter 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...