DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
TAL
Docket No: 7771-14
13 August 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
17 July 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 2 July 1968. You served for a year and one month
without disciplinary incident, but during the period from
5 August 1969 to 25 July 1970, you received nonjudicial
punishment (NJP) on one occasion and were convicted by summary
courts-martial (SCM) on five occasions. Your offenses were
failure to go to your appointed place of duty, unauthorized
absence (UA), willfully disobeying a lawful order from a
commissioned officer, failure to obey a lawful general order and
sleeping on post.
Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative
separation by reason of unfitness due to frequent involvement.
You elected to consult with legal counsel and requested an
administrative discharge board (ADB). On 6 October 1970, the
ADB recommended an other than honorable (OTH) discharge by
reason of unfitness due to frequent involvement. The separation
authority agreed with the finding and recommendation of the ADB
and directed your commanding officer to issue you an OTH
discharge by reason of unfitness and on 28 October 1970, you
were so discharged.
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. Your assertion that you suffered from PTSD was
fully and carefully considered by the Board in light of the
Secretary of Defense’s Memorandum, “Supplemental Guidance to
Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records
Considering Discharge Upgrade Request by Veterans Claiming Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder” of September 3, 2014. In accordance
with the guidance, the Board gave liberal and special
consideration to treatment record documentation of PTSD symptoms
and Department of Veterans’ Affairs determinations of the
existence of service connected PTSD. The Board fully and
carefully considered the existence of your PTSD and determined
that it existed at the time of your discharge and weighed its
existence as potential mitigation in the misconduct you
committed. Specifically, the Board looked to see whether it was
a causative factor in your misconduct and weighed it against the
severity of your actions. After carefully considering the
evidence, the Board determined the severity of your misconduct
far outweighed any mitigation the PTSD provides. The offenses
you committed were very serious in nature warranting the
discharge characterization you received even taking into
consideration the existence of PTSD. Accordingly, your
application has been denied.
Further, regarding your request for a personal appearance be
advised that Board regulations state that personal appearances
before the Board are not granted as a right, but only when the
Board determines that such an appearance will serve some useful
purpose. In your case, the Board determined that a personal
appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on
the evidence of record.
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,
ROBER J. O’NELLGL
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6699 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...
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 | CY2009 | 04037-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 August 2009. 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 further considered your previous applications with this Board in March 2000 and the Naval Discharge Review Board in December 1984.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR1782 14
three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 March 2015. Subsequently, on 15 November 1994, administrative discharge action was initiated disorder, You waived your rights to consult counsel, submit a statement, or have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB). Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR1004 14
A. three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 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 policies. You were so ‘discharge on 10 November 1992. : The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR1004 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 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 policies. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your record of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR764 14
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval recora, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. occasions, were You were notified of pending administrative discharge processing with an other than honorable (OTH) discharge due to misconduct {civil conviction). Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR0896 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 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 policies. Subsequently, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to wrongful drug use.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR896 14
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 wrongful drug use. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your record of service, desire to upgrade your...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR13168 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 July 2015. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Specifically, the Board looked to see whether it was a causative factor in your misconduct and weighed it against the severity of your actions.