DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
ELP
Docket No. 1013-01
29 June 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.
considered your application on
Your allegations of error and injustice were
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records,
sitting in executive session,
27 June 2001.
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
al!1 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.
The record reflects that you were
The Board found that you enlisted in the Marine Corps on 18 June
1980 for four years at age 18.
advanced to LCPL (E-3) and served for nearly eight months without
However, during the 22 month period from February 1981
incident.
to December 1982 you received seven nonjudicial punishments
(NJP) .
place of duty, two instances of sleeping on watch, two instances
of being unable to perform your duties due to intoxication, two
communicating a threat, and two brief
instances of disobedience,
periods of unauthorized absence (UA) totalling about a day.
Your offenses consisted of absence from your appointed
The record further reflects that from February to May 1983 you
participated in operations with a multi-national peacekeeping
force in Beirut, Lebanon.
NJPs.
You were advised of your procedural rights, declined
NJPs for absence from your appointed place of duty. On
During the months of August and September 1983 you received two
more
23 September 1983 you were notified that you were being
recommended for an other than honorable discharge by reason of
misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by the
nine
to consult with legal counsel or submit a statement in your own
behalf, and waived the right to present your case to an
A staff judge advocate
administrative discharge board (ADB).
reviewed the discharge processing documentation and found it to
‘ be sufficient in law and fact.
authority directed discharge under other than honorable condi-
tions due to misconduct.
You were so discharged on 11 October
1983.
On 6 October 1983 the discharge
The Board concluded that the
The Board noted your contentions that
you received the Navy Unit
In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors such as your youth and immaturity,
limited education, and the fact that it has been nearly 18 years
since you were discharged.
your service in Beirut was exemplary;
Commendation Medal for a rescue mission; and you believed that
there were no realistic options to accepting an other than
honorable discharge, and that such a discharge would have no
affect your veterans' benefits.
foregoing factors and contention were insufficient to warrant
recharacterization of your discharge given your record of nine
NJPs.
The Board noted the aggravating factor that you waived
your right to an ADB,
should be retained or discharged under honorable conditions.
While your short service in Beirut may have been exemplary, the
Navy Unit Commendation Medal you received was not for individual
effort but the unit's effort.
Beirut did not overcome the excessive number of disciplinary
actions which marred your 40 months of service.
you were told your discharge would not affect your veterans
benefits was erroneous and does not provide a valid basis for
recharacterizing service.
The Board concluded that you were
guilty of too much misconduct to warrant recharacterization to
honorable or under honorable conditions.
application has been denied.
of the panel will be furnished upon request.
the one opportunity you had to show why you
The names and votes of the members
Additionally, your service in
The fact that
Accordingly, your
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.
2
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
3
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10071-06
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 reenlisted in the Navy on 24 March 1981 after nearly nine years of honorable service. on 12 July...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 02321 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 March 2013. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change to your characterization of service, due to your misconduct. 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 | CY2009 | 05281-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 January 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. After consulting with legal counsel, you elected to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB).
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05835-01
factors were insufficient to warrant recharacterization of the discharge given your record of five The Board noted the aggravating factor that you waived your right to an ADB, the one opportunity you had to show why you should be retained or discharged under honorable conditions. much misconduct in only 23 months of service to warrant recharacterization to honorable or under honorable conditions. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02994-01
Dear This is in reference to your naval record pursuant to the States Code, Section 1552. application for correction of your provisions of Title 10, United Your allegations of error and injustice were A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, 15 November 2001. reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. during the nine month period from November 1979 to December...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01913-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 October 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 | CY2010 | 03773-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 January 2011. On 9 November 1990 you were so discharged. 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 | CY2009 | 13156-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 September 2010. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01583-01
1583-01 29 June 2001 Dear This is in reference to your naval record pursuant to the States Code, Section 1552. application for correction of your provisions of Title 10, United Your allegations of error and injustice were A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, 27 June 2001. reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. However, the Board concluded that these factors...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01350-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 December 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. Additionally, you were counseled and warned, after your first NUP, that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action.