DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
TAL
Docket No: 1289-14
30 July 2015
Derr ii a:
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.
Although your application was not filed in a timely manner, the
Board found it in the interest of justice to waive the statute of
limitations and consider your application on its merits. A
three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, considered your application. 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, began a period of active duty
on 23 March 1970, and served without disciplinary incident until
7 April 1971, when you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for
failure to go to your appointed place of duty. Subsequently, on
1 February 1972, you were convicted by special court-martial
(SPCM) of failure to obey a lawful order/underage drinking,
damage to government property, and wrongful appropriation of an
automobile/Jeep. About seven months later, on 11 September 1982,
you received your second NUP for disrespect.
On 1 October 1973, you were apprehended and held in confinement
by civil authorities. As a result, on 17 December 1973, you were
convicted by civil authorities of grand theft auto and sentenced
to confinement for 60 days and probation for three years.
Following your release from civil confinement, you returned to
military custody. Shortly thereafter, on 9 April 1974, you were
honorably released from active duty, transferred to the Marine
Corps Reserve, and assigned an RE-3D reenlistment code.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your desire to remove “lost time” from your record and be issued
a Good Conduct Medal. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these
factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case
because of your misconduct in both the military and civilian
communities. The Board noted that the severity of your
misconduct, which included confinement and/or your absence from
the Marine Corps, outweighed the mitigation of your desire to
have lost time removed from your record or be issued a Good
Conduct Medal. Finally, the Board concluded that there is no
documentation in your record which supports the premise that you
completed a four year term of service without disciplinary
incident/infraction which would entitle you to a Good Conduct
Medal. With that being said, the notation on your Certificate of
Discharge or Release from Active Duty (DD Form 214) does not show
that you received a Good Conduct Medal, but only sets forth the
starting date for the next period of the award. 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 within one year from the date of the Board’s decision.
New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board
prior to making its decision in your case. 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
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 01165-11
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with ali material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Your record, however, does not reflect the court action or sentence for the foregoing charge. 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 | 04632-02
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 November 1955 the discharge authority then directed an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct. On 22 November The Board The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your prior honorable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05238-08
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. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12307-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 September 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09065-10
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 28 February 1974, you received NUP for a seven day UA period. 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 | CY2007 | 11117-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 02157-10
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 January 1969, shortly after being released from confinement, you began another period of UA that was not terminated until you were apprehended on 8 April 1969, On 19 May 1969 you were again UA for a three day. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00919-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 December 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. 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 | CY2001 | 03539-01
You were again advanced to PFC and On 9 June 1969 you were The DD Form 214 shows that you had three periods of lost time, UA from 10 February to 10 March 1967 and two periods of confinement from 11 April to 12 June and 22 October to 21 December 1967. for entitlement to the Good Conduct Medal commenced on 26 October 1967, the day after your summary court-martial conviction. The DD Form 214 also indicates that eligibility Regulations provided that individuals discharged for the convenience of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01492-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 November 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. An average of 4.0 in conduct was required at the time of your discharge for a fully honorable characterization of service.