DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S, COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490"
SUN
Docket No: 02426-1353
12 February 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 11 February 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 16 duly 1969. The Board found that on 21 September 1970,
you were apprehended by civilian authorities on the charge of
possessing stolen property. On 5 February 1971, you were found
guilty of possessing stolen property. You were sentenced to two
years in confinement. Additionally, you were pending extradition
to the state of Illinois for autobobile theft. Subsequently,
your commanding officer recommended that you receive an
undesirable discharge by reason of unfitness. At that: time you
were in the hands of civil authorities. You were notified of
pending administrative separation action and on 22 July 1971, an
administrative discharge board (ADB) recommended that you be
discharged from the service with an undesirable discharge due to-
unfitness. Your case was forwarded, and on 2 August 1971, the >
separation authority approved the recommendation for an
undesirable discharge. You were so discharged on 12 August 1971.
The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, record of
service, and character letter dated 8 December 1971.
Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not —
sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given
your conviction by civil authorities of serious offenses, and the
fact that you were pending extradition to the state of Illinois
on the charge of automobile theft. 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. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director
USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-00489
This can not be called a repeated offense of theft, because my civil court concluded on 970528 that it was two counts of possession and not felonious larceny as stated on my discharge paperwork. Supervised probation for 18 months.970711: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense as evidenced by conviction on July 2, 1997 by the State of North Carolina for two charges of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 04611-04
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 March 2005. 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 | CY2008 | 00602-08
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. Furthermore, the Board noted that in addition to your civil conviction, you had an NJP and were convicted by a court-martial. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00632-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 May 2002. 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. CNP further directed that you be advised that you were being placed in a probationary status for a period of 12 months and that the CO was authorized to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6359 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 May 2015. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09602-07
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. Subsequently, your case was forwarded, and on 20 July 1967 the discharge authority approved the recommendation for an undesirable discharge. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090006720
On 18 January 1971, the applicant's commander initiated action to discharge the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 due to conviction by civil authorities. Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 16 July 1971, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, due to conviction by civil authorities. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140014760
However, there is a DD Form 214 showing he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 with his service characterized as under other than honorable conditions. b. Paragraph 3-7b states a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. As part of his separation processing, he received a mental hygiene consultation.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07352-06
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 April 2007. 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 | 02103-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 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. You elected to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB), which voted three to zero in favor of an under other than honorable...