Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10710-10
Original file (10710-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
REC

WASHI :
NGTON DC 208708100 1) at No: 10710-10
10 August 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 10 August 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 enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active
duty on 8 February 1985, at age 19. On 5 November 1985, you
received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for sleeping while on post
(fire watch). On 27 June 1986, you received NUP for sleeping on
post, and being incapacitated to perform your duties. On 24
August 1986, you received NJP for being disrespectful toward a
commissioned officer. On 20 September 1986, you received NUP for
being in an unauthorized absence (UA) status for four days, being
absent from your appointed place of duty, and being disrespectful
toward a senior noncommissioned officer. On 20 October 1986, you
began a period of unauthorized absence (UA) lasting 146 days.
Subsequently, you submitted a written request for an
administrative discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial
for the period of UA. Prior to submitting this request for
discharge, you conferred with a qualified military lawyer, were
advised of your rights, and warned of the probable adverse
consequences of accepting such a discharge. Your request for
discharge was granted and on 16 April 1987, you received an other
than honorable (OTH) discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.
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.

The Board, in its review of your 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 recharacterization
of your discharge because of your misconduct that resulted in
four NJP’s, period of UA totaling over four months, and request
for discharge. The Board believed that considerable clemency was
extended to you when your request for discharge was approved.

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. Further,
you are advised that there is no provision in the law or Navy
regulations that allows for recharacterization of your discharge
automatically 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,

Lo Dae Ph)

W. DEAN PFPEVF
Executive Dire

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09065-10

    Original file (09065-10.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 28 February 1974, you received NUP for a seven day UA period. 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 | 04613-10

    Original file (04613-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 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. 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 | CY2014 | NR3946 14

    Original file (NR3946 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 April 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. As a. result of this action, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05796-10

    Original file (05796-10.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 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 | CY2012 | 00151-12

    Original file (00151-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 September 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07199-10

    Original file (07199-10.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 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 | CY2010 | 03857-10

    Original file (03857-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your ~ application on 26 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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of your four NUPs,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08314-10

    Original file (08314-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    BR three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of your three NJP’s,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03658-09

    Original file (03658-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 January 2010. As a result of this action on 5 February 1986 you were discharged under other than honorable conditions. 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 | CY2011 | 00646-11

    Original file (00646-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 October 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 14 January 1986, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable (OTH) discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for...