Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11696-10
Original file (11696-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

 

TJIR
Docket No: 11696-10
25 August 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 23 August 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 1 June 1978 at age 18 and
served for nearly seven months without disciplinary incident.
However, on 6 December 1978, you received nonjudicial punishment
(NIP) for disrespect and were awarded restriction for five days.

On i1 January 1979 you began a period of unauthorized absence
(UA) that was not terminated until 8 March 1979. During this
period of UA you also missed the movement of your ship and were
declared a deserter. As a result of the foregoing, you submitted
a written request for an other than honorable discharge in order
to avoid trial by court-martial for desertion and missing the
movement of your ship. 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. During the period
from 19 June to 14 September 1979 you were again in a UA status
on three more occagions for 32 days. The record does not reflect
the disciplinary action taken, if any, for this misconduct.
Nonetheless, your request for discharge 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 10 November 1979 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 that you did nothing that would warrant
an other than honorable discharge. Nevertheless, the Board
concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant
recharacterization of your discharge because of the seriousness
of your misconduct, lengthy period of UA which resulted in your
request for discharge, and repetitive periods of UA from the
Marine Corps for which no disciplinary action was taken. 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 documented evidence in the
record which is contrary to your assertion. 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 wpon 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,

\pRonmS !
W. DEAN PF
Bxecutive tdér

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR6920 13

    Original file (NR6920 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 July 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. It appears that you requested discharge for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial for the latter period of UA totalling 78 days.

  • 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 | CY2009 | 06250-09

    Original file (06250-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 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. As a result, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for the foregoing period...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR7897 13

    Original file (NR7897 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 26 August 2014. . As a result of these periods of UA totalling 182 days, on 2 May 1974, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 07289-09

    Original file (07289-09.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 | CY2009 | 07289-09

    Original file (07289-09.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 | CY2006 | 02435-06

    Original file (02435-06.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.You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 29 July 1977 at age 20. On 24October 1979 you were convicted by...

  • 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 | CY2006 | 03515-06

    Original file (03515-06.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.You enlisted in the Navy on 20 May 1976 at age 19. Subsequently, on 7 and again on 13 November 1977...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 01158-11

    Original file (01158-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 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. The record does not reflect the disciplinary action taken, if any, for this misconduct.