Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04082-11
Original file (04082-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

 

TAL

Docket No: 4082-11
27 January 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 25 January 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 Marine Corps and began a period of active
duty on 27 December 1966 at age 20. You received nonjudicial
punishment (NJP) on four occasions for failure to obey a lawful
order, unauthorized absence (UA) from your unit for a period of
two days, failure to go to your appointed place of duty, and
sleeping on post. On 22 July 1968, you were UA from your unit
while in Toulon, France, and on 26 July 1968 you missed your
ship’s movement. On 9 August 1968, your command was notified by
the American Consulate in France, that you were admitted to a
hospital with a claim of loss of memory due to a head injury. On
12 August 1968, you were returned to military control and
transported to Quonpt, Rhode Isiand, where you began a period of
UA until your apprehension on 4 August 1969, in Detroit,
Michigan, a period of 349 days. On 12 May 1970, you submitted a
written request for an other than honorable (OTH) discharge in
order to avoid trial by court-martial for the forgoing periods of
UA. 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
commanding officer 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 14 May 1970 the separation
authority approved your request for discharge. On 15 May 1970
you were separated with a discharge 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 four NUPs, and periods of UA
totaling over one year and five 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. Further, the Board concluded that
you received the benefit of your bargain with the Marine Corps
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,

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04823-11

    Original file (04823-11.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 | CY2011 | 03482-11

    Original file (03482-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 January 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 | CY2009 | 10686-09

    Original file (10686-09.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. On 15 December 1970, you submitted a written request to be discharged for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial for the periods of UA.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 00624 12

    Original file (00624 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 11 October 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 4 June 1970, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable (OTH) discharge in order to avoid trial by court- martial for two...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03584-09

    Original file (03584-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 January 2010. On 22 November 1968, you received NUP for UA from you appointed place of duty. On 28 May 1970 you were 8O discharged.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 05683 12

    Original file (05683 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 27 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04417-11

    Original file (04417-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 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 | CY2011 | 02555-11

    Original file (02555-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 November 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 | CY2010 | 08351-10

    Original file (08351-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of your misconduct that...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01962-07

    Original file (01962-07.rtf) 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.On 25 July 1967, you enlisted in the Marine Corps at age 19. On 17 November 1970, the separation...