Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11717-10
Original file (11717-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

 

TIR

Docket No: 21717-10
16 September 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 13 September 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 28 September 1971 at age 17
and served for about seven months without disciplinary incident.
However, on 9 April 1972, you received nonjudicial punishment

(NJP} for lying down on post and were awarded a reduction in
paygrade.

On 1 February 1974 you were convicted by special court-martial
(SPCM) of a 119 day period of unauthorized absence (UA). About
five months later, on 15 July 1974, you submitted a written
request for an other than honorable discharge in order to avoid
trial by court-martial for attempted theft of personal property
valued at about $60, and for altering the testimony of a witness.
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. Ags 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 22 August 1974 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, combat service, and desire to upgrade your discharge.
It also considered your assertion that you believe you were
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 misconduct which resulted in
an NOP, SPCM, and 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. Further, there is no evidence in the record, and you
submitted none, to support your assertion of PTSD. Finally,
applicable directives state that even if a Marine is processed
for separation by reason of a medical or mental condition, if the
Marine meets the requirements of another reason for separation,
such as misconduct, the Marine will be separated for the latter
reason. In this regard, you requested separation because of your
misconduct. 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,

Executive Dire

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11031-10

    Original file (11031-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11790-10

    Original file (11790-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A teres member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6356 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR6356 14_Redacted.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. Finally, the Board considered your assertion of PTSD in light of the Secretary of Defense’s...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04126-11

    Original file (04126-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your application on 19 April 2011. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your applications, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. The Board noted that your characterization of service was changed to general under honorable conditions, but concluded that a further change was...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09060-07

    Original file (09060-07.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 2008. 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 applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...

  • 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 | CY2008 | 02011-08

    Original file (02011-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 December 2008. 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 applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...

  • 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 | 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 | 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...