Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4925 13
Original file (NR4925 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

TJR ;
Docket No: 4925-13
‘29 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 15 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 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 14 August 1972. You served for about six months without
disciplinary incident, however, during the: period from 27
February 1973 to 12 January 1976, you received nonjudicial
punishment (NJP) on eight occasions: for five pericds of
unauthorized absence (UA) totalling 21 days,-disobedience, and
two periods of absence from your appointed place of duty. While
in @ UA status, on 21 December. 1976, you -wére convicted by’ civil

authorities of indecency and aggravated rape and sentenced to
confinement. - oo “

On 17 January 1977 you were notified of administrative separation
by reason of misconduct due to civil conviction. After
consulting with legal counsel, you elected to present your case
to.an administrative discharge board (ADB). On 21 April 1977 an
ADB recommended separation under other than honorable conditions
by .reason of misconduct due to civil conviction. Subsequently,
your commanding officer, in concurrence with the ADB, also
recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by
reason of misconduct due to civil conviction. On 13 May 1977 the
discharge authority approved these recommendations and directed
discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of
misconduct, and on 23 May 1977 you were so separated.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your desire to upgrade your discharge and assertion of having
post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Nevertheless, the Board
concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in
your case because of the seriousness of your repetitive
misconduct in both the military and civilian communities.
Further, there is no evidence in the record, and you provided
none, to support your assertion of having PTSD. 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,

ROBERT D. 2ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08643-01

    Original file (08643-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 June 2002. On 6 October 1977 an ADB recommended an other than honorable discharge by reasion of misconduct due to civil conviction. 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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4547 13

    Original file (NR4547 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 15 April 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 probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4552 13

    Original file (NR4552 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 9 April 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 probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00939-11

    Original file (00939-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 October 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. However, the record does not reflect the disciplinary action taken by civil authorities for this misconduct.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8881 13

    Original file (NR8881 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 30 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06140-10

    Original file (06140-10.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 9 July 1975 you began another period of UA that was not terminated until you were apprehended and held in custody by Civil authorities on 3 November 1975. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7562 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR7562 14_Redacted.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 July 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. In your case, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 04643-05

    Original file (04643-05.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 Marine Corps on 1 December 1975 at age 19. Subsequently, on 15 November 1977, the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR2441-13

    Original file (NR2441-13.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. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant any change in your discharge given your five NUP‘s, one of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07795-06

    Original file (07795-06.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.On 28 May 1976 you enlisted in the Marine Corps at age 18. During the period from 5 July to 28 July...