DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
TLG
Docket No: 5393-14
26 May 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. The application was filed in
a timely manner.
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 May 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 Navy and began a period of active duty on
21 June 1991. You served for about 13 months without
disciplinary incident. However, during the period from
5 June to 30 July 1992, you received nonjudicial punishment
(NJP) for three periods of unauthorized absence (UA), two
specifications of disrespect and disobedience. You were also in
an UA status on three occasions for nine days.
During the period from 27 August 1992 to 24 March 1993, you were
again UA on seven occasions for 35 days. Your record also
reflects that you committed other disciplinary infractions,
specifically, disrespect and disobeying lawful orders during
this timeframe. In this regard, it appears that you requested
discharge for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-
martial for the foregoing disciplinary infractions. Regulations
required that before making such a request, an individual had to
be advised by military counsel concerning the consequences of
such a request. Since the record shows that you were discharged
for separation in lieu of trail by court-martial on
25 March 1993, the Board presumed that the foregoing occurred in
your case. Because you requested discharge in lieu of trail,
you avoided the possibility of a punitive discharge and
confinement at hard labor.
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 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 misconduct, which
resulted in NUP and presumably your request for discharge. The
Board believed that considerable clemency was extended to you
when your request for discharge was approved, by this action,
you escaped the possibility of confinement at hard labor and a
punitive discharge. The Board further concluded that you
received the benefit of your bargain with the Navy when your
request for discharge was granted. Finally, the Board
considered your assertion of PTSD in light of the Secretary of
Defense’s Memorandum “Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards
for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge
Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming Post-Traumatic Stress
Disorder” of September 3, 2014. However, the Board was unable
to substantiate your claim of 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 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 | NR5393 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 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. During the period from 27 August 1992 to 24 March 1993, you were again UA on seven occasions for 35 days.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR8553 14
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 7018S. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 February 2015. 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 | NR2340 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 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. As a result, on 2 February 1973, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2340 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 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. As a result, on 2 February 1973, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR8553 14_Redacted
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 7011S. 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 18 June 1976, you werg igsued an other than honorable discharge.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2015 | NR1536 15_Redacted
tatute of limitations and consider your application on its A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, Sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 May 2015. Subsequently, you submitted a written request for a honorable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for four periods of UA totalling 239 days. On 21 February 1975, your request was granted and the commandina officer was directed to issue you an other than honorable | discharge by...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5865 14_Redacted
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together ith all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, applicable statutes, regulations, You enlisted in the Marine Corps iod of active duty on 28 April 1969. 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. New evidence is evidence not previously considered...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6356 14_Redacted
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. Finally, the Board considered your assertion of PTSD in light of the Secretary of Defense’s...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4376 14
A three- member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 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. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitiaating factors, such as your record of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4376 14_Redacted
A three- member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 Aprii 2015. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all macerial submitted in support thereof, your naval record, anc 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...