DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
REC
Docket No: 09068-10
5 May 2011
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the 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 4 May 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,
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 19 January 1972 after
serving honorably in the Navy. On 24 January 1973, you received
nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for disobeying a lawful order. On
25 January 1973, you received NUP for disobeying a lawful order,
and two incidents of failure to go to your appointed place of
duty. On 29 July 1973, you received NJP for being in an
unauthorized absence (UA) status, failure to obey a lawful order,
disobeying a lawful order, being disrespectful toward a senior
noncommissioned officer, and reckless driving. On 23 August
1973, you received NUP for being absent from your appointed place
of duty, and drinking alcoholic beverages while in a duty status.
On 10 September 1973, you received NUP for breaking restriction.
On 10 January 1975, you received NIP for being absent from your
appointed place of duty. On 15 August 1975, you were convicted
by a summary court-martial (SCM) of being UA on three occasions.
You were sentenced to a forfeiture of $200, reduction in pay
grade, and 40 days restriction. On 16 September 1975, you
received NUP for destroying four windows. On 17 September 1975,
you submitted a request for a good of the service discharge to
34>
L
e
avoid trial by court-martial for failure to obey a lawful order,
and dishonorably failing to pay just debt on five occasions,
totaling $363.63. Prior to submitting this request for
discharge, you conferred with a qualified military lawyer, were
advised of your rights, and were warned of the probable adverse
consequences of accepting such a discharge. Your commanding
officer forwarded his recommendation that you be discharged under
other than honorable (OTH) conditions by reason of the good of
service. Your request for discharge was granted and on 7
November 1975, you received an OTH discharge for the good of the
service. 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. At that time
you were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, conduct
and performance, and overall record of service. Nevertheless,
the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant
changing the characterization of your service, given your seven
NJP’s, one conviction by a SCM, and request for discharge. The
Board also 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.
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,
Ly Dees
W. DEAN PFE
Executive D ic
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07199-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 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. Your request for discharge was granted and on 18 June 1974, you received an OTH discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06011-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 April 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00214-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your , application on 13 October 2011. On 13 December 1961, you received NUP for three incidents of failure to go to 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 | 08316-10
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. 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 | CY2009 | 01889-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 November 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03799-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your , application on 20 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. On 8 September 1973, you submitted a request for a good of the service discharge to avoid trial by court-martial for being absent from your...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07251-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 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. On 29 December 1975, you received NUP for being UA for three days.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05796-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 March 2011. On 14 June 1979, you received NUP for being disrespectful toward you a chief petty officer on two occasions, and failure to obey a written regulation. On 17 February 1983, after appellate review, you received the BCD.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06269-10
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 | CY2008 | 09370-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting:in executive session, considered your — application on 13 August 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. entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.