Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 05410-12
Original file (05410-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

 

TUR
Docket No: 5410-12
13 duly 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 10 July 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 on 27 December 1973 at age 18
and immediately began a period of active duty. The following

month, on 4 January 1974, you received nonjudicial punishment

(NOP) for disobedience and disrespect.

On 16 August and again on 30 September 1975 you received NUP for
making a false official statement, disobedience, and a one day
period of unauthorized absence (UA). During the period from 9
October to 9 November 1975 you were again in a UA status, missed
the movement of your ship, and broke restriction on two
occasions. As a result, on 8 December 1975, you submitted a
written request for an other than honorable discharge in order to
avoid trial by court-martial for a 14 day period of UA, missing
the movement of your ship, and two specification of breaking
restriction. 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. On 2 January 1976 your request was
granted and the commanding officer was directed to issue you an
other than honorable discharge by reason of the good of the
service. 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 29 January
1976 you were issued an other than honorable discharge.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth, desire to upgrade your discharge, and assertion that
your absences were to avoid drug involvement and other trouble.
Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not
sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge
because of the seriousness of your repetitive misconduct which
resulted in three NOPs and your 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 you should not be permitted to
change it now. Finally, there is no evidence in the record, and
you submitted none, to support your assertion. 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,

Ls Qa!
W. DEAN eels
Executive ae c

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06250-09

    Original file (06250-09.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. 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, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for the foregoing period...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06258-09

    Original file (06258-09.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. As a result, on 14 September 1976, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR067 14

    Original file (NR067 14.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 November 2014 The names and votes of tne 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 wit! Consequently, when...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08595-06

    Original file (08595-06.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 July 2007. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR6920 13

    Original file (NR6920 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 July 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. It appears that you requested discharge for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial for the latter period of UA totalling 78 days.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 01158-11

    Original file (01158-11.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 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. The record does not reflect the disciplinary action taken, if any, for this misconduct.

  • 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 | CY2006 | 03515-06

    Original file (03515-06.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.You enlisted in the Navy on 20 May 1976 at age 19. Subsequently, on 7 and again on 13 November 1977...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11696-10

    Original file (11696-10.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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 02723-11

    Original file (02723-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of your misconduct,...