Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07322-10
Original file (07322-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

TAL
Docket No: 7322-10

29 March 2011

   

RionaeanaiT ony:

This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10, United

States Code, section 1.552.

yr Correction of Naval

Rh three-member panel of the Board fo
considered your

sitting in executive session,
son on 23 March 2011. The names and votes of the members

1 will be furnished upon request. Your allegations of
d in accordance with

Records,
applicat

of the pane
error and injustice were reviewe
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 a sderation of the entire
record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient
to establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice.

d began a period of active
You received nonjudicial
ubordinate conduct

improper appearance,
stances of failure

You enlisted in the Marine Corps an

duty on 2 January 1975 at age 19.
punishment (NTP) on six occasions for ins
toward a superior noncommissioned officer,

two instances of breaking restriction, seven Trt
to go to your appointed place of duty and unauthorized absence
|

(UA) from your unit. On 7 July 1977, you were UA from your unit
for a period of 11 days until you surrendered on 18 July LOT? 5

On 17 October 1977, you were again UA from your unit for a period
of 182 days until you were returned to military control on 17
April 1978. 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. 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. Your request was
granted and the commanding officer directed your other than
honorable (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 31 May 1978, 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
gecharacterization of your discharge given the seriousness of
your misconduct that resulted in six NUPs, periods of UA totaling
@over six months 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 Lt
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,

lONonce,

W. DEAN PFEYTF
Executive &

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09505-09

    Original file (09505-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval ‘Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 June 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. On 23 August 1978, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable (OTH) discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00234-11

    Original file (00234-11.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. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01837-08

    Original file (01837-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You were subsequently assigned to an infantry unit at Camp Pendleton. The Board also 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. 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 | CY2013 | NR8164 13

    Original file (NR8164 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 4 September 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4986-13

    Original file (NR4986-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 January 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. As a result of this action, you were spared the stigma of a court-martial conviction and the potential penalties of a punitive discharge...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07171-10

    Original file (07171-10.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 the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Between 14 March and 4 June 1978, you commenced three periods of UA, the first period lasting six days, the second period lasting 27 days, and the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5349 14

    Original file (NR5349 14.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 May 2015. 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 13 June 1978, you received NUP for a seven day period of UA from your unit.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00141-11

    Original file (00141-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval ‘Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 September 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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your two NUP’s, a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05876-10

    Original file (05876-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 February 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03592-10

    Original file (03592-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    BR three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 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 29 January 1981, you submitted a request for a good of the service discharge to avoid trial by court-martial for your period of UA.