a
~~" DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
TJIR
Dockét No: 818-14
27 January 2015
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
late husband's naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title
10, United States Code, Section 1552.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
. Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 21 January 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 husband's naval
record, and applicable statutes, requlations, 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.
Your husband enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of
active duty on 14 March 1967. He served for about six months
without disciplinary incident, but during the period from 27
November 1967 to 1 November 1968, he was convicted by summary
court-martial (SCM) of a nine day period of unauthorized absence
(UA) and twice by special court-martial (SPCM) of three periods
of UA totalling 70 days, missing the movement of his ship, and
breaking stragglers order.
During the period from 31 December 1969 to 24 July 1970, your
husband was again in a UA status totalling 181 days. Asa
result, on 8 September 1970, he submitted an written request for
an other than honorable discharge in lieu of trial by court-
Martial. - Subsequently, his request was approved and on 8
September 1970, he was so discharged. Nonetheless, on 27
September 1977, the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) upgraded
the characterization of his service to general under honorable
conditions based, in part, on his service in combat and receipt
of awards and/or medals.
The Board, in its review of your husband‘’s entire record and your
application carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors,
such as your desire to upgrade his discharge, and the character
reference letter in support you’re your request. Nevertheless,
the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant
further recharacterization of your husband's discharge because of
his repeated and lengthy periods of UA totalling 260 days which
‘resulted in three court-martial convictions and his request for.
ischarge to avgid a punitive discharge. Further, a fully
honorable characterization of service is not authorized if a
Marine is convicted by more than one SPCM. 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 or other matter not previously considered by the Board
within one year from the date of the Board's decision. 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 | CY2012 | 00575-12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 November 2012. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your late husband's 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00618-09
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your late husband's naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Subsequently, upon his return, on 19 February 1970, he submitted a request for an administrative discharge in order to avoid trial by another court-martial for the additional periods of UA. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08496-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 June 2010. 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 ali material submitted in support thereof, your late husband's naval record, and applicable statutes,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5108 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 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. On 22 May 1969, you were convicted by SPCM of a 79 day period of UA and sentenced to a $97 forfeiture of pay, reduction to paygrade E-1, confinement...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01099-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Na-1 Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 July 1999. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your husband's naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. On 23 April 1969 the commanding officer recommended your husband be issued an undesirable discharge by reason of unfitness.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04389-09
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all Material submitted in support thereof, your late husband’s naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. About six months later, on 8 January 1969, he received NUP for a nine day period of UA. 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 | 04258-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 January 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. .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 | NR604 14
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 policies. Your request for discharge was granted and on 3 March 1970, you received an other than honorable discharge for the good of the service in lieu of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07613-10
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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your misconduct that resulted in convictions by SCM and SPCM, charges being preferred to a court-martial for a periods of UA totaling over four months, and request for discharge. ...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8403 13
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 OF injustice. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant vecharacterization of your husband’s discharge because of his repeated and lengthy periods of UA which resulted in three SPCMs, and since his conduct average was insufficiently hign to warrant a fully honorable...