DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
ELP
Docket No. 7364-00
18 May 2001
This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval
record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, United States Code, Section
1552.
A three-member panel for the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting
in executive session, considered your application on 9 May 2001. 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 that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the
existence of probable material error or injustice.
You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 21 March 1990 for four years at age 17.
The record reflects that you served without incident until 23 October 1990
when you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for two instances of absence
from your appointed place of duty.
You served in Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm from December 1990
to March 1991, and then served without further incident until 25 July 1991
when you were counseled for being absent from your appointed place of duty.
During the three month period from June to October 1992 you received two
NJPs for use of a provoking racial slur and two periods of unauthorized
absence totalling about 46 days. Thereafter, you were formally counseled
regarding the absences. The counseling entry noted that it only was the
vote of confidence expressed by your chain of command that prevented you
from receiving a court-martial rather than NJP.
On 12 May 1993 you were notified that you were being processed for
administrative separation by reason of misconduct due to a
pattern of misconduct. On 18 May 1993 you received your fourth NJP for a
three hour period of UA and driving on base while your driving privileges
were suspended. On 26 June 1993 you elected to present your case to an
administrative discharge board. On 18 October 1993 an ADB recommended that
you be discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of
misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions. A staff judge advocate
reviewed the proceedings and found them to be sufficient in law and fact.
On 23 November 1993 the discharge authority directed discharge under other
than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to minor disciplinary
infractions. You were so discharged on 3 December 1993. Your conduct and
proficiency averages at time of discharge were 3.3 and 3.7, respectively.
The Naval Discharge Review Board denied your request for an upgrade of your
discharge on 3 April 1995.
In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors such as your youth and immaturity, combat
service in Desert Shield/Desert Storm, regret for the actions which led to
your discharge, letters of reference, and the fact that it has been more
than seven years since you were discharged. The Board noted your contention
that you are a much better person than that reflected on your DD Form 214,
marital problems impacted on your performance, and that you were within
three months of completing your enlistment when you were discharged. The
Board concluded that the foregoing factors and contentions were
insufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your
record of numerous counselings, substandard conduct and proficiency marks,
and four NJPs. The Board concluded that the discharge was proper and no
change is warranted. Accordingly, your application has been denied. The
names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
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. 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,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
2
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 04926-08
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 connection with this processing, you acknowledged that separation could result in an other than honorable (OTH) discharge and waived the right to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB). Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02322-07
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.On 25 April 1988, you enlisted in the Marine Corps at age 19. On 19 August 1991, you had NJP for a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02322-07
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.On 25 April 1988, you enlisted in the Marine Corps at age 19. On 19 August 1991, you had NJP for a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 02244-03
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 August 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 | CY2007 | 08347-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 April 2008. 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 | CY2008 | 02859-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 April 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. On 19 March 1993, you were so discharged.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04113-01
The punishment imposed was a $176 forfeiture of On 21 August 1991 you received NJP for a day of unauthorized absence pay and restriction and extra duty for 14 days. However, the Board concluded these factors and Accordingly, your application has been Given all the circumstances of your case, NJPs. 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 | 01030-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 November 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. In this regard, an RE-4 reentry code is required when an individual is discharged for misconduct and is not recommended for retention.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06282-00
You continued to serve in the Marine Corps and whea you You were honorably discharged on During this period you Individuals discharged for unsuitability received the type of Character of service discharge warranted by the service record. The Board also noted your In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors such as your youth and immaturity, subsequent honorable service in Vietnam in which you were twice wounded in combat, and your...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 01879 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 December 2012. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge due to your repetitive misconduct that resulted in three NJPs. 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.