Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8333 13
Original file (NR8333 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

 

SIN
Docket No: 8333-13
4 September 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 3 September 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 12 June 1975. The Board found that during the pericd
from 16 September 1976 to 1 February 1977, you received four
nonjudicial punishments (NUJP’s) for four instances of being
absent from your appointed place of duty, failing to be at your
appointed place of duty, disrespect, breaking restriction, and
sleeping on post. On 3 February 1977, you began a period of
unauthorized absence (UA) that lasted 97 days, ending on 10 May
1977. While you were in a UA status, you were arraigned and
tried by special court-martial (SPCM), in absentia, for six
specifications of failing to go’ to your appointed place of duty,
disobedience, and disrespect. You were sentenced to a reduction
in paygrade, a forfeiture of pay, and confinement at hard labor.
On 20 May 1977, you submitted a written request for a good of the
service discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for
the 97 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 8 June 1977, 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, and desire to upgrade your discharge. Nevertheless, the
Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant
recharacterization of your discharge given your misconduct that
resulted in four NJP’s, an SPCM conviction, 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. 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 J. O’ NEILL
Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR6920 13

    Original file (NR6920 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 July 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. It appears that you requested discharge for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial for the latter period of UA totalling 78 days.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05223-00

    Original file (05223-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 January 2001. Board found the evidence and materials submitted were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given the lengthy periods of UA and your request for discharge to avoid trial for these periods of UA. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...

  • 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 | CY2007 | 06912-07

    Original file (06912-07.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 10 April 1973, you enlisted in the Marine Corps at age 17 with parental consent. On 23 May 1977,...

  • 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 | CY2013 | NR3840-13

    Original file (NR3840-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your | application on 12 March 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 | CY2013 | NR3537-13

    Original file (NR3537-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your . | 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 applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06039-01

    Original file (06039-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 February 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. convicted by SPCM of the four specifications of disobedience and sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 75 days, a $744 forfeiture of pay, reduction to discharge (BCD). 1978 you were convicted by SPCM of two periods...

  • 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 | CY2013 | NR3342-13

    Original file (NR3342-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    1980, you made a written request for an other _ than honorable (OTH) discharge to-avoid trial by court-martial for three instances of UA from your unit for a period totaling 30 days, failure to go to you appointed place of duty, . ‘The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as recharacterization of your. when your request for.