Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR8645 14_Redacted
Original file (NR8645 14_Redacted.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

 

TLG
Docket No: 8645-14
20 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

14 August 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 Maine Corps on 19 February 1965, and serve
for about 14 months without incident. However, during the
period from 10 April 1966 to 27 January 1969, you received three
nonjudicial punishments (NJP) for absence from your appointed
place of duty, disobeying a lawful order, and disrespect to an
officer. You were also convicted by summary court-martial
(SCM) of absence from your appointed place of duty, disrespect,
and disobeying a lawful order. On 27 January 1969, you were
convicted by general court-martial (GCM) of assault and
disrespect.
You were sentence to forfeiture of pay, confinement for one
year, reduction to E-1, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD).
After the BCD was approved at all levels of review, on 24 June

1969, 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 post-
traumatic stress gisorder (PTSD). Nevertheless, the Board
concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant
relief given your misconduct. In this regard, the Board
concluded that your record of multiple infractions/offenses,
which resulted in three NJPs, two SCMs, and GCM. Regarding your
assertion of suffering from PTSD, the Board 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 weighted it against the severity of your
misconduct. 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.

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,

 

ROBERT J. O'NEILL
Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7771 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR7771 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 17 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 | NR3901 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR3901 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 8 April 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 | CY2014 | NR0172 14

    Original file (NR0172 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 October 2014. On 16 May 1969, you were again convicted by SPCM for two instances of UA from your unit totaling a period of 12 days and failure to go to your appointed place of duty. 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 | NR172 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR172 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 16 October 2014. 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 16 May 1969, you were again convicted by SPCM for two instances of UA from your unit totaling a period of 12 days and failure to go to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5865 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR5865 14_Redacted.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together ith all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, applicable statutes, regulations, You enlisted in the Marine Corps iod of active duty on 28 April 1969. 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. New evidence is evidence not previously considered...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5393 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR5393 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 22 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. During the period from 27 August 1992 to 24 March 1993, you were again UA on seven occasions for 35 days.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5393 14

    Original file (NR5393 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 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. During the period from 27 August 1992 to 24 March 1993, you were again UA on seven occasions for 35 days.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR12036 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR12036 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 4 August 2015. 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 that you were found guilty of only one theft. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7097 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR7097 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 23 June 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 | NR4626 14

    Original file (NR4626 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three- member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 April 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...