DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
TAL
Docket No: 4296-14
27 April 2015
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.
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 on
22 April 2015. 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 20 June 1978. You served for one month without
disciplinary incident, but during the period from 8 July 1978 to
25 March 1981, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on two
occasions and were convicted by a summary and special courts-
martial. Your offenses were failure to obey a lawful order,
larceny and unauthorized absence (UA) from your command for
periods totaling 140 days. As a result of your special court-
martial conviction the sentence imposed was confinement at hard
labor, a forfeiture of pay, reduction in paygrade and a bad
conduct discharge (BCD). On 7 August 1981, you were discharged
with a BCD after appellate review.
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 suffering
from 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 repeated
misconduct. Regarding your assertion of suffering from PTSD, the
Board noted that you did not provide a diagnosis and that the
severity of your misconduct outweighed the mitigation of your
possible diagnosis. 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 | CY2014 | NR4296 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 April 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5147 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 May 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. 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 | CY2014 | NR660 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 January 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. Nonetheless, your request was denied and the BCD was subsequently approved at all levels of review, and on 30 January 1976, you were so discharged.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR510 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 January 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. Subsequently, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3901 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 April 2015. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in your case. 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 | CY2014 | NR12070 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 March 2015.. Asa result, you were processed for an administrative separation by reason of misconduct due to drug under other ‘than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse, which was in direct Gisregard to the Navy's ‘Zero Tolerance’ Policy, and conviction by civil authorities for possession of marijuana. Consequently, when applying for a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR13277 14
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. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in your case. “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 | CY2014 | NR12070 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 March 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. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application with supporting documentation, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR0172 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 October 2014. On 16 May 1969, you were again convicted by SPCM for two instances of UA from your unit totaling a period of 12 days and failure to go to 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR172 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 October 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 16 May 1969, you were again convicted by SPCM for two instances of UA from your unit totaling a period of 12 days and failure to go to...