Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR1837-13
Original file (NR1837-13.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: 01837-13
29 January 2014

 

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 January 2014. 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 2 June 1972. The Board found that during the period from
21 June 1972 to 29 September 1975, you received four nonjudicial
punishments (NJP’s) for two periods of unauthorized absence (UA)
totaling six days, two instances of failing to go to your
appointed place of duty, disobedience, and being absent from your
appointed place of duty. On 3 October 1975, you began a period
of UA that lasted 101 days, ending on 12 January 1976. On

30 January 1976, you submitted a written request for a good of
the service discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial
for 101 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 6 February 1976, 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, record of
service, desire to upgrade your discharge, and belief that your
characterization of service would automatically change six

months after your discharge. Nevertheless, the Board concluded
these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization
ef your discharge given your misconduct that resulted in four
NJP’s, charges being preferred to a court-martial for a period of
UA totaling over three 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. Finally, you are
advised that there is no provision of law or in Marine Corps
regulations that allows for recharacterization of a discharge
automatically after six months or 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,

ROBERT D. 2SALMAN
Acting Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR2487-13

    Original file (NR2487-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04939 11

    Original file (04939 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 28 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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of your...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08125-01

    Original file (08125-01.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 May 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. On 12 April 1973 you received NJP for two periods of absence from your appointed place of duty, disobedience, and a five day period of UA. November 1976, you submitted a written request for an undesirable discharge in order...

  • 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 | CY2009 | 01027-09

    Original file (01027-09.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...

  • 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 | CY2009 | 02408-09

    Original file (02408-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 January 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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of your misconduct...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 12122-10

    Original file (12122-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 of your discharge given your two NUP’s, conviction by SPCM of a lengthy period of UA, and your request for discharge to avoid trial for a period of UA lasting over 15 months. Consequently, when applying...

  • 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 | 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...