Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 05287 11
Original file (05287 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

 

SIN
Docket No: 05287-11
1 March 2012

 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the
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 28 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 6 February 1975. The Board found that on 29 October
1975, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for 50 days of
unauthorized absence (UA). On 13 November 1975, you began a
period of UA that lasted 169 days, ending on 11 May 1976. On
10 June 1976, you submitted a written request for a good of the
service discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for
the 169 days of UA. However your request was denied on 20 June
1976. On 21 June 1976 until 19 December 1977, you had four
periods of UA totaling 483 days. During your absence, you were
apprehended by civil authorities on 20 July 1977, and charged
with grand theft. On 3 February 1978, you submitted another
written request for a good of the service discharge in order to
avoid trial by court-martial for the 483 days of UA. 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. Your request for discharge was granted and on

17 February 1978, you received an other than honorable discharge
for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.
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 application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and
record of service. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these
factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of
your discharge given your NUP for a lengthy period of UA, a 169
day period of UA that appears was never adjudicated, charges
being preferred to a court-martial for four periods of UA
totaling over 16 months, and request for discharge. The Board
believed that considerable clemency was extended to you when
your request for discharge was approved. The Board also
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. 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,

\ anes

W. DEAN PF
Executive r or

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05223-00

    Original file (05223-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 January 2001. Board found the evidence and materials submitted were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given the lengthy periods of UA and your request for discharge to avoid trial for these periods of UA. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 01331-12

    Original file (01331-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, Sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 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. However, your request for discharge was denied on 12 January 1977.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01837-08

    Original file (01837-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You were subsequently assigned to an infantry unit at Camp Pendleton. The Board also concluded that you received the benefit of your bargain with the Marine Corps when your request for discharge was granted and you should not be permitted to change it now. 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 | CY2009 | 01305-09

    Original file (01305-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your ‘application on 8 December 2009. 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 applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06473-09

    Original file (06473-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 June 2010. As a result, on 21 March 1978, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for the foregoing three periods of UA totalling 31 days and desertion resulting from a 127 day period of UA. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8164 13

    Original file (NR8164 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 4 September 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4986-13

    Original file (NR4986-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 January 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. As a result of this action, you were spared the stigma of a court-martial conviction and the potential penalties of a punitive discharge...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04846-09

    Original file (04846-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted im 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 material error or...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08933-09

    Original file (08933-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 June 2010. You submitted a written request for an other than honorable (OTH) discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for the foregoing periods of UA totaling 173 days. 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 | CY2009 | 09505-09

    Original file (09505-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval ‘Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 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 23 August 1978, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable (OTH) discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for...