Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8164 13
Original file (NR8164 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
BOARD-FOR CORRECTION. OF NAVAL-RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 4001

TAL
Docket No: 8164-13
12 September 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 4 September 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 28 February 1975 at age 17. On 7 June 1976, you
received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for unauthorized absence
(UA) from your unit for one day and failure to obey a lawful
order from a superior commissioned officer. On 30 August 1976,
you were convicted by summary court-martial of two instances of
UA from your unit for a period totaling 14 days and missing

ship’s movement. On 27 January and 11 February 1977, you
received NJP for three instances of UA from your unit totaling a

period of nine days and failure to obey a lawful written
regulation. On 28 September 1977, you were convicted by special
court-martial (SPCM) of UA from your unit for two periods
totaling 43 days. The sentence imposed was confinement at hard
labor and a forfeiture of pay. On 20 March 1978, you were again
convicted by SPCM of UA from your unit for a period of 27 days
and failure to go to your appointed place of duty. On 30 June
and 11 July 1978, you received NUP for two instances of UA from
your unit for a period totaling six days. On 24 July 1978, you
were UA from your unit until 23 January 1979, a period of 183
days. ‘On 24 January 1979, you were again UA from your unit
until 12 October 1979, a period of 261 days. On 24 October 1979
you submitted a request for an other than honorable (OTH)
discharge to avoid Frial by court-martial for the foregoing
periods of UA. Prior to submitting this request you conferred
with a qualified military lawyer at which time you were advised
ef your rights and warned of the probable adverse consequences
ef accepting such a discharge. Your request was granted and the
separation authority directed your 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 1 November 1979, you were
discharged under OTH conditions.

The Board, in its review of your éntire record and application
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth and overall record of 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 five NUPs, an
SCM, two SPCMs, periods of UA totaling over one year and five
months 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 ail 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 J. O'NELTLE
Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06162-08

    Original file (06162-08.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. During the period 4 April to 10 August 1978, you were in a UA status, a period of about 128 days. On 15 August 1979, the separation authority approved the recommendation and directed an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct due to frequent discreditable involvement.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04695-09

    Original file (04695-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 March 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. Consequentiy, 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 | 00141-11

    Original file (00141-11.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 September 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 concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your two NUP’s, a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4993 13

    Original file (NR4993 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 7 May 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 | CY2008 | 02601-08

    Original file (02601-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 November 2008. 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 30 May 1978, you were convicted by a summary court-martial of the 39 day period of UA.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03156-09

    Original file (03156-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 February 2010. 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 initially enlisted in the Air Force from July 1972 to April 1974, and received an honorable discharge. Consequently, when applying for a correction of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8945 13

    Original file (NR8945 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 24 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4659 13

    Original file (NR4659 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 7 May 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. On 3 April 1979, you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of two specifications of failing to go to your appointed place of duty,...

  • 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 | CY2008 | 09635-08

    Original file (09635-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 August 2009, Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 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....