DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
REC
Docket No: 03551-11
21 February 2012
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 15 February 2012. 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 and began a period of active
duty on 7 October 1969, at age 20. On 3 April 1970, you
received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for being in an
unauthorized absence (UA) status for nine days. On 30 April
1970, you received NJP for two incidents of being absent from
your appointed place of duty, and failure to obey a lawful
order. On 1 July 1970, you received NUP for being absent from
your appointed place of duty, and failure to obey a lawful
order. On 1 October 1970, you received NUP for being UA for
four days. On 12 February 1971, you were charged with
impersonating a staff noncommissioned officer, two incidents of
disobeying a lawful order, and being disrespectful toward a
senior noncommissioned officer. You were referred to trial by
court-martial. However, you submitted a request for a good of
the service discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial
for these charges. Prior to submitting this request for
discharge, you conferred with a qualified military lawyer, were
advised of your rights, and were warned of the probable adverse
consequences of accepting such a discharge. However, your chain
of command reviewed your entire case and decided to recommend
you for a general 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. On 16 April 1971, you received NJP for being absent
from your appointed place of duty. On 26 April 1971, your
commanding officer forwarded his recommendation that you receive
a general discharge by reason of unfitness. However, your
misconduct continued and on 1 May 1971, you received NUP for
disobeying a lawful order. On 7 May 1971, the discharge
authority directed a general discharge by reason of unfitness.
On 19 May 1971, you were so discharged.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth and Vietnam service. However, the Board found that
these factors were not sufficient to warrant any change in your
character of service, given your record of six NJP’s for
misconduct. The Board also noted that you were fortunate to
receive a general discharge since a separation under other than
honorable conditions is often directed when an individual is
found to have committed misconduct. The Board also noted that
you waived your procedural right to an ADB, your best
opportunity for retention or a better characterization of
service. 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,
\y.
W. DEAN PFET
Executive Di
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08316-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 April 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 | 09068-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 May 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. Your request for discharge was granted and on 7 November 1975, you received an OTH discharge for the good of the service.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08336-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 April 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 were counseled and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09118-10
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. 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 | CY2011 | 04823-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07251-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 April 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 29 December 1975, you received NUP for being UA for three days.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07199-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 April 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. Your request for discharge was granted and on 18 June 1974, you received an OTH discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00214-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your , application on 13 October 2011. On 13 December 1961, you received NUP for three incidents of failure to go to your appointed place of duty. - 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 | 05796-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 March 2011. On 14 June 1979, you received NUP for being disrespectful toward you a chief petty officer on two occasions, and failure to obey a written regulation. On 17 February 1983, after appellate review, you received the BCD.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09157-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 August 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...