Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR568 14_Redacted
Original file (NR568 14_Redacted.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTM E NT  O F  T HE  NA V Y 

BOARD  FOR  CORRE C TION  OF  NA V AL  RE CO RDS 

70 1  S.  COURT H OUSE  ROAD ,  SUITE  1001 

ARLING T O N,  VA  22204-2490 

SJN 
Docket  No:  568-14 
4  March  2015 

Dear  

This  is  in  reference  to  your  application  for  correction  of  your 
n aval  record  pursuant  to  the  provisions  of  title  10  of  the  United 
States  Code,  section  1552 . 

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 .  The  names  and  votes  o:  the  members  of  the  panel 
will  be  furnished  upon  request .  Your  allegations  o:  error  and 
injustice  were  reviewed  in  accordance  wich  administrative 
regulations  and  procedures  appl:cable  co  che  proceed~ngs  o:  chis 
Board .  Documentary  materia l  considered  by  che  Board  cons:sced  o: 
your  application,  together  with  all  material  subm it~ed  in  support 
chereof,  your  naval  record,  and  app~icablE  s~atu~es,  regula~ions, 
and  policies . 

After  careful  and  conscientious  consideration  of  the  e~cire 
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  17  July  1973 .  During  the  period  f r om  19  June  1974  to 
7  March  1975 ,  you  rece ived  11  nonjudicial  punishments  (NJPs ) .  On 
12  May  1975,  you  were  convicted  by  summary  court - martial  (SCM)  of 
assault.  On  9  June  1975,  you  received  anot her  NJP  for 
di sobedienc e .  Although  your  record  is  incomplete,  you  submitted 
a  written  request  for  a  good  of  the  service  discharge  in  order  to 
avoid  tria l  by  court - martial  for  four  days  of  unauthorized 
absence  (UA)  and  larceny.  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  a nd  on  5  September  1975,  you  re c e ived  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  t he  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, 
careruLLY  weighed  all  pocencially  micigating  factors,  such  as 
your  record  of-~ervice,  post  service  medical  and  personal  issues, 
desire  to  upgrade  your  discharge,  and  claim  of  post-traumatic 
stress  disorder  (PTSD) .  Nevertheless,  the  Board  concluded  these 
factors  were  not  sufficient  to  warrant  recharacterization  of  your 
discharge  given  your  11  NJPs,  and  SCM  conviction .  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  and~~elated to  the  alleged  error  or  injustice .  Despite 
your  claim  of  PTSD,  the  Board  determined  it  i nsuff icient  to 
warrant  relief  since  there  is  no  evidence  in  the  record  to 
support  it,  and  you  submitted  none .  The  Board  believed  that 
c onsiderable  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  cas e  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. 
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 . 

In  this  regard,  it  is 

Executive 

2 



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR683 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR683 14_Redacted.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    three-member panel of che Board :or Correcc~on of Nava: Records, sitting in executive session, considered your applicacion on 22 January 2015 . warrant recharacterization of your discharge given the seriousness of your misconduct and request for discharge . 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 .

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR11612 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR11612 14_Redacted.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by of your application, together with all : in support thereof, your naval record, and regulations, and policies record r personality n immaturi heroin, cocaine, amphetamine uana, a diethylamide (LSD). Further, the Board concluded that you received the benefit of your bargain with the Navy when your request for discharge was granted and you should not be permitted to charige it now. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3342 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR3342 14_Redacted.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board, in its review of your entire record and application carefully weighed a+l potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgr~de your discharge and assertion of post(cid:173) traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) . New evidence is evidence not previously considered by In this 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2015 | NR1536 15_Redacted

    Original file (NR1536 15_Redacted.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | NR1805 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR1805 14_Redacted.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A chree-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 December 201~ . Documentary material co~sidered by the Board consisted o: your application, together with a:l material submitted in support thereo:, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regula~ions, and po_icies. During this period of UA, May 1991, you were declared a deserter.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6356 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR6356 14_Redacted.pdf) 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. Finally, the Board considered your assertion of PTSD in light of the Secretary of Defense’s...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7562 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR7562 14_Redacted.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 July 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. In your case, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3410 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR3410 14_Redacted.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 November 2014 . Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your n aval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies . Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the app licant to demonstrate the existence of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR8553 14

    Original file (NR8553 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | NR621 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR621 14_Redacted.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 February 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 pclicies. After applying these guidelines to the evidence in the case, the Board was not able to substantiate the existence o= PTSD in your case .