Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11031-10
Original file (11031-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR GORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

TUR
Docket No: 11031-1060
20 July 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 19 July 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 insufficient
to establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice.

You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 25 January 1974 at age i9 and
served without disciplinary incident until 9 September 1974, when
you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for a two day period of
unauthorized absence (UA). About two months later, on 29
November 1974, you received NIP for being incapacitated for duty
due to overindulgence in liquor. .

On 7 July 1975 you received your third NJP for a one day period
of UA and were awarded a $75 forfeiture of pay and restriction
for 14 days. During the period from 27 July to 20 November 1975
you were UA on two more occasions. As a result, on 31 December
1975, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable
discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for the two
foregoing periods of UA totalling 102 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. 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 30 January 1976 you were issued an other than
honorable discharge.

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. It also

. considered your assertion of suffering from post traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD). . Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors
were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your
discharge because of the seriousness of your repetitive
misconduct which resulted in three NUJPs and two lengthy periods
of UA from the Marine Corps, which also resulted in 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. Finally, there is no evidence in the
record, and you submitted none, to support of your assertion of
suffering from PTSD. 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,

loTpa.w

I R
Executive rector

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2015 | NR1536 15_Redacted

    Original file (NR1536 15_Redacted.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    tatute of limitations and consider your application on its A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, Sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 May 2015. Subsequently, you submitted a written request for a honorable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for four periods of UA totalling 239 days. On 21 February 1975, your request was granted and the commandina officer was directed to issue you an other than honorable | discharge by...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08741-07

    Original file (08741-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, gitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 November 2008. 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, on 28 February 1975, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3342 14

    Original file (NR3342 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 5 November 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. after careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3342 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR3342 14_Redacted.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board, in its review of your entire record and application carefully weighed a+l potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgr~de your discharge and assertion of post(cid:173) traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) . New evidence is evidence not previously considered by In this the Board prior to making its decision in your case. 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 | 05027-08

    Original file (05027-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03027-10

    Original file (03027-10.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. AS & result, on 19 March 1975, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable discharge in order to avoid trial by court- martial for the three foregoing periods of UA totalling 376 days. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR8553 14

    Original file (NR8553 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 7018S. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 February 2015. 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 | 11717-10

    Original file (11717-10.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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 05410-12

    Original file (05410-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 July 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. As a result, on 8 December 1975, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR8553 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR8553 14_Redacted.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 7011S. 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 18 June 1976, you werg igsued an other than honorable discharge.