Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4315 13
Original file (NR4315 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

TAL
Docket No: 4315-13
11 April 2014

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 2 April 2014. 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 ail
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 27 February 1969 at age 18. You received nonjudicial
punishment (NJP) on seven occasions for two instances of failure
to obey a lawful regulation, two instances of unauthorized
absence (UA) from your unit for a period totaling 14 days, six
instances of insubordinate conduct toward a.noncommissioned
officer and breaking restriction. On 9 January 1973, you were
convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of four instances of
failure to go to your appointed place of duty, three instances
of UA from your unit for a period totaling seven days, failure
to obey a lawful order from a commissioned officer and
insubordinate conduct toward a noncommissioned officer. On

20 February 1973, you made a written request for discharge for
the good of service to avoid trial by court-martial for failure
to go to your appointed place of duty, UA from your unit for a
period of six days, four instances of insubordinate conduct
toward a noncommissioned officer and two instances 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. Your request was granted and the
commanding officer directed your other than honorable (OTH)
discharge. 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
26 March 1973, you were discharged under OTH conditions.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth, overall record and Vietnam combat service.
Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not
sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given
the seriousness and repetitiveness of your misconduct that
resulted in seven NJPs, an SCM and 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 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,

SOD, Ate Sree

ROBERT D. “YSALMAN
Acting Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07395-10

    Original file (07395-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 March 2011. Documentary material considered by together with all the Board consisted of your application, 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 | CY2010 | 06287-10

    Original file (06287-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 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. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given the seriousness of your...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04651-10

    Original file (04651-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 January 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. 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 | CY2010 | 05832-10

    Original file (05832-10.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 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. 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 | CY2011 | 04823-11

    Original file (04823-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07322-10

    Original file (07322-10.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. On 17 May 1978 you made a written request for discharge for the good of service to avoid court-martial for the foregoing periods of UA. *Further, the Board concluded that you received the benefit of your bargain with the Marine Corps when your request for discharge was granted and should...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10774-10

    Original file (10774-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 June 2011. On 28 January 1974 you submitted a written request for an other than honorable (OTH) discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for four instances of failure to go to your appointed place of duty, insubordinate conduct toward a superior noncommissioned officer, escaping from arrest, damage of government property, and two instances of assault. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09068-10

    Original file (09068-10.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 May 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. Your request for discharge was granted and on 7 November 1975, you received an OTH discharge for the good of the service.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06004-10

    Original file (06004-10.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 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. 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 | CY2010 | 00021-10

    Original file (00021-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 September 2010. On 30 August 1989, you received NJP for UA Erom your appointed place of duty. 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.