Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04040-11
Original file (04040-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 10014
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

 

TAL
Docket No: 4040-11
10 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 2 February 2012. 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 Reserve and began a period of active
duty on 15 February 1973 at age 17. On 7 September 1973 you
were in an unauthorized absence (UA). status from your unit for a
period of three days until you surrendered on 10 September 1973.
On 10 September 1973 you were again UA from your unit for a
period of 58 days until 7 November 1973. On 5 April 1974 you
were UA from your unit for a period of 151 days until you were
apprehended on 3 September 1974. During the preceding period of
UA you wrote three insufficient fund checks that totaled
$130.00. On 8 January 1975, you were UA from your unit for a
period of 243 days until you surrendered on 8 September 1975.

On 15 December 1975, you were UA from your unit for a period of
20 days until you surrendered on 5 January 1976. On 11 February
1976, you submitted a written request for an other than
honorable (OTH) discharge in order to avoid trial by court-
martial for the pending charges. 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. Your
request was granted and the separation authority directed your
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. On 19
March 1976 you were discharged under OTH conditions.

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 periods of UA that totaled over
one year and 10 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. Finally, 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. 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,

  

Executive D

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04352-11

    Original file (04352-11.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 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. 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 | 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 | CY2010 | 03722-10

    Original file (03722-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your ~ application on 12 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR2755-13

    Original file (NR2755-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 February 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 probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10655-09

    Original file (10655-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 July 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. 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

    Original file (06269-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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 | 07395-10

    Original file (07395-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 March 2011. Documentary material considered by together with all the Board consisted of your application, 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 | CY2008 | 07417-08

    Original file (07417-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 February 2009. Your military record shows that you submitted a written request for an undesirable discharge (UD) in order to avoid trial by court-martial for the two periods of unauthorized absence totaling about 575 days. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04820-11

    Original file (04820-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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 | CY2009 | 10677-09

    Original file (10677-09.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...