DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
TLG
Docket No: 7233-14
7 July 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
1 July 2015. 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 were commissioned in the Marine Corps and began a period of
active duty on 24 July 1972. On 13 March 1974, you were
convicted by general court-martial of violating a lawful general
order, borrowing money from enlisted personnel, accepting loans
in an official capacity, signing a false official statement, and
subscribing to a false affidavit. You were sentence to a $1,000
fine, letter of reprimand, and loss of lineal numbers.
On 15 April 1976, you were honorably released from active duty
after requesting to be discharged with severance pay.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your desire to remove derogatory material and assertion of
receiving a full presidential pardon. Nevertheless, the Board
concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in
your case given the seriousness of your misconduct as evidenced
by your GCM conviction. In regards to your assertion, your
record did not contain any evidence supporting a presidential
‘pardon. 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
applying for correction of an official naval record, the burden
is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of the probable
material error or injustice.
Sincerge1
ROBERT J. O'NE
Executive Director
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 | NR13277 14_Redacted
A three-member’ panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, ‘considered your application on 6 January 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 | CY2010 | 09258-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 May 2011. On 7 June 1968, you were convicted by a SPCM of a UA totaling 31 days. 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 | CY2011 | 00553-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 October 2011. 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 | NR3481 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 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. 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 | 04181-12
You served without disciplinary incident until 5 May 1971, when you received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for a seven day period of unauthorized absence (UA). On 15 June 1971 you submitted a written request for a hardship discharge which was subsequently disapproved. On 29 March 1972 this request was denied because of your disciplinary, actions during your period of confinement.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03027-09
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. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to.warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your record of three NUP’s and conviction by two SCM’s and one SPCM for serious misconduct. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07265-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 May 2003. 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 bad conduct discharge was issued on 4 April 1966.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 13048-09
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 11 June 1971, you were separated with a BCD and an RE-4 reenlistment code due to your conviction at a GCM. 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 | 03442-07
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 on 6 July 1972 at age 19. Upon completion of the alternative...