DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
TIR
Docket No: 10642-12
16 October 2013
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 8 October 2013. 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 on 31 July 1990 and began a period of
active duty on 9 October 1990. You served for about a year and
seven months without disciplinary incident, but during the period
from 5 February to 21 July 1992, you ‘received nonjudicial
punishment (NJP) on three occasions for two periods of absence
from your appointed place of duty and two periods of unauthorized
absence (UA) totalling 39 days.
Your record reflects that on 4 June 1992 you began a period of UA
and stated that you did not intend to return to duty. Due to
your stated intention, you were declared a deserter anda
Declaration of Desertion (DD Form 553) was prepared and entered
into the National Crime Information Center of the Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI). As a result a warrant was subsequently
issued and on 1 July 1992 you were apprehended and confined by
civil authorities.
After your return to military custody in August 1992, you were
processed for an administrative separation by reason of
misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and a pattern
of misconduct. After waiving your procedural right to consult
with legal counsel and to present your case to an administrative
discharge board (ADB), on 20 August 1992, your commanding officer
recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by
reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and a
pattern of misconduct. On 1? September 1992 the discharge
authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed
your commanding officer to issue you an other than honorable
discharge by reason of misconduct, and on 22 September 1992, you
were so discharged.
Your record contains correspondence from the Bureau of Naval
Personnel dated 13 July 1994 which states, in part, that the DD
Form 553 (mark of desertion) was legally, properly, and correctly
written and issued as reflected in the record.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your desire to have the mark of desertion and all references
thereto removed from your record and the records of the FBI. In
this regard, the Board has no authority to correct FBI records.
It also considered your assertion that the mark of desertion is
in error because you were only UA for 22 days and had intended to
and subsequently did return to your duty station after you turned
yourself into the nearest command. Nevertheless, the Board
concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant removal of
the mark of desertion from your record. Further, your record
reflects evidence that is contrary to your assertion. Finally,
there is no evidence in the record, and you submitted none, to
support your assertion that you turned yourself into the nearest
command. 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;
LO Depd ;
W. DEAN PF
Executive Dsrecho
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07743-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 August 2008. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval re ord, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. At Ithat time you waived your right to consult with legal counsel an to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB)| On 15 April...
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0902572
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s date of discharge. There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining veterans benefits and this issue does not serve to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02315-09
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 25 May 1993 you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by the two periods of UA totalling 66 days. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03660-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 June 2011. You enlisted in the Marine Corps Reserve on 27 June 1995 at age 19 and began a period of active duty on 5 July 1995. The Board believed that had you not began your second period of UA for 114 days, you could have presumably been processed for separation based on the recommendation from medical authorities regarding your mental condition and your...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 05898-12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 July 2012. Although the discharge documentation is not in your record, it appears that you requested discharge for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial for the foregoing 375 day period of UA. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, which included supporting documentation, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05586-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 February 2008. On 20 August 1982, after consulting counsel, you requested an other than honorable (OTH) discharge for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial for the charges of desertion and UA. 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 | 11222-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 September 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 13 January 1971 you submitted a written request for an other than honorable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 02686-10
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. 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 ifijuetice. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 07469-03
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 Corp on 4 March 1969 at age 18. As a result of this action, you were...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 05765-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 May 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. After waiving your procedural rights, the discharge authority directed your commanding officer to issue you an other than honorable discharge by...