Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 12502-10
Original file (12502-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

 

TAL
Docket No: 12502-10
19 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 17 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 Navy and began a period of active duty on

30 April 1973 at age 18. On 18 March 1976, you were convicted in
Harrisson County court, Harrisson County, Mississippi of wrongful
possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. You were
sentenced to pay a fine of $450.00. On 19 March 1976, you
received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for willfully disobeying a
superior officer. On 20 May 1976, you were in an unauthorized
absence status from your unit for a period of 223 days until you
were apprehended by the Federal Bureau of Investigation on 29
December 1976. Based on the information currently contained in
your record it appears that you submitted a written request for
an other than honorable (OTH) discharge in order to avoid trial
by court-martial. Prior to submitting this request you would
have 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. On 1 March 1977,
your request was granted and you were separated with an OTH
discharge. 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 entire record and 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 given the seriousness of
your misconduct that resulted in a civil conviction, one NUP, a
period of UA that lasted over seven months and 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. The Board concluded that you
received the benefit of your bargain with the Navy when your
request for discharge was granted and should not be permitted to
change it now. Finally, there is no provision of law or in Navy
regulations that allows for recharacterization of service 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 ean§

W. DEAN PFE

  
 

Executive Di

Similar Decisions

  • 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 | CY2010 | 05197-10

    Original file (05197-10.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. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant changing the characterization of your service, given your two NJP’s and periods of UA totaling 100 days. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09118-10

    Original file (09118-10.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. Your request for discharge was granted and on 4 June 1971, you received an other than honorable discharge (OTH) for the good of service to avoid trial by court-martial. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06945-10

    Original file (06945-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 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 | CY2010 | 05693-10

    Original file (05693-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    BR three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 February 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 | CY2010 | 12122-10

    Original file (12122-10.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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your two NUP’s, conviction by SPCM of a lengthy period of UA, and your request for discharge to avoid trial for a period of UA lasting over 15 months. Consequently, when applying...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05198-10

    Original file (05198-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 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. You submitted a written request for a good of the service discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for the periods of UA.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04023-11

    Original file (04023-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 February 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 of this action, you were spared the stigma of a court-martial conviction and the potential penalties of a punitive discharge and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 00317-12

    Original file (00317-12.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. On 24 September 1974 you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of UA from your unit for a period of 111 days.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 05185 12

    Original file (05185 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 20 March 2013. 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...