DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
SIN
Docket No: 5554-14
6 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.
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
5 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 Marine Corps and began a period of active duty on
4 May 1971. During the period from 9 May 1972 to
17 January 1973, you received two nonjudicial punishments (NJPs) and
were convicted by two summary courts-martial (SCM’s). On
27 March 1973, you were counseled regarding testing positive for the
wrongful use of morphine. You were warned that further misconduct
could result in administrative discharge action. Subsequently, you
were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of
unfitness due to frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with
military authorities. After being afforded all of your procedural
rights, you elected to consult with legal counsel and requested an
administrative discharge board (ADB). On 14 April 1973, the ADB found
that you had committed misconduct, and recommended you receive a
general discharge. On 17 April 73, you were convicted by special
court-martial (SPCM) of breaking restriction. Further, an
investigation implicated you in an alleged larceny incident. At that
time the results of your ADB were held in abeyance. On
24 May 1973, you submitted a written request for a good of the service
discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for attempted
larceny, house breaking with intent to commit larceny, being absent
from your appointed place of duty, disrespect, wrongful possession of
narcotics paraphernalia, three specifications of larceny, and
communicating a threat. 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 24 May 1973, 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 entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your
record of service, and desire to change your discharge. Nevertheless,
the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant
recharacterization of your discharge given your two NJP’s, two SCM’s,
conviction by SPCM, charges being preferred to a court-martial for
serious offenses, 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.
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.
ROBERT J. O'NEILL
Executive Director
Ta a
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03123-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 January 2012. 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 | CY2009 | 02486-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 January 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 probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 00207 12
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 March 1984, you were counseled and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action. 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 | 05233-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 January 2002. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09535-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 June 2010. On 28 December 2976, you received the OTH discharge for misconduct due to civil conviction. 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 | NR568 14_Redacted
Although your appli cation was not filed in a timely manner, the Board found it in the interest of jus t ice to waive the statute of limitations and consider your ~pplication on its merits _ A three - member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in execut ive session, considered your application on 3 February 2015 . Regarding your claim of PTSD, the Board may only consider assertion of PTSD when an applicant Rresents clear evidence that the PTSD is service connected...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01326-10
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS . A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 November 2010. You were notified of pending administrative discharge processing with an other than honorable (OTH) discharge due to misconduct.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR657 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06405-06
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 7 July 1978 you enlisted in the Navy at age 18, and on 31 October 1978 you received nonjudicial...
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...