DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TOR
Docket No: 1866-11
8 November 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 2 November 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 January 1972 at age 18 and
served for about a year and three months without disciplinary
infraction. However, on 9 April 1973 you began a period of
unauthorized absence (UA) that was not terminated until you were
apprehended on 13 May 1974. On 19 June 1974 you were convicted
by special court-martial (SPCM) of the foregoing period of UA
‘totalling 399 days. You were sentenced to reduction to paygrade
E-1, confinement at hard labor for four months, an $800
Forfeiture of pay, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD).
On 30 September 1974 you submitted a written request for
restoration to duty, which was subsequently denied. On 13
January 1975 the BCD was approved at all levels of review, and on
28 February 1975, you were issued a BCD.
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 being the only person who could
provide care for your ailing mother. Nevertheless, these factors
were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your
discharge given the seriousness of your lengthy period of UA from
‘the Marine Corps. 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,
Wrong
W. DEAN PFE
Executive Dil
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 01165-11
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with ali material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Your record, however, does not reflect the court action or sentence for the foregoing charge. 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 | 03027-10
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 | CY2010 | 03857-10
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 | 03451-10
A 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. 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 | 06269-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 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 | 06004-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 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 | CY2014 | NR5645 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 May 2015. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your record of service, desire to upgrade your discharge, and your assertion that you suffered a traumatic head injury while serving in the Marine Corps. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06650-10
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. On 17 July 1975, you submitted a request for a good of the service discharge to avoid trial by court-martial for being UA a total of 79 days.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11031-10
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 | CY2009 | 06582-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 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. On 30 May 1975 you received NUP for a 16 day period of UA.