DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Y
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 203704100
CRS
Docket No: 5360-99
16 August 2000
Dear
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.
Your allegations of error and
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 16 August 2000.
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.
opinion furnished by the Assistant Staff Judge Advocate for
Military Law, Headquarters Marine Corps dated 22 June 2000, a
copy of which is attached.
In addition, the Board considered the advisory
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.
concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion.
Accordingly, your application has been denied.
The names and
votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
In this connection, the Board substantially
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
Enclosure
.
2
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
2 NAW ANNEX
WASHINGTON, DC 20380-1775
IN REPLY REFER
TO_
1070
JAM4
2 JUN 2000
??
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS (BCNR) APPLICATION
IN THE CASE OF
We are asked to provide an opinion on Petitioner's request
1.
that his nonjudicial punishment (NJP) of 6 June 1956 be
overturned and that he be reinstated to the grade of sergeant.
:
We recommend that the requested relief be denied.
2.
analysis follows.
Our
Petitioner was punished at NJP
Background.
On 6 June 1956,
Petitioner was honorably discharged from active
3.
for violating a battery order that prohibited the wearing of the
Petitioner was awarded a
utility uniform in the mess hall.
reduction in grade from sergeant to corporal.
not appeal.
duty on 11 October 1956.
should be expunged because his punishment was an attempt by his
command,
perception of racial prejudice where it intentionally targeted
In addition,
an African-American Marine for punishment.
Petitioner claims that the severity of the offense did not merit
the punishment he received.
by punishing a Caucasian Marine, to avoid the
Petitioner now contends that his NJP
Petitioner did
4.
Analysis
a.
Petitioner's claim that his NJP was motivated by racial
Given that a presumption of
prejudice is without merit.
regularity attaches to official records, the burden is on the
Petitioner to provide evidence that the record is erroneous.
Petitioner has not offered any evidence that his NJP was imposed
for an improper purpose.
NJP on this or any other grounds at the time.
Further,
Petitioner did not appeal his
b.
Petitioner's claim that his offense did not warrant the
punishment he received is without merit.
violating a battery order,
offense was nothing."
the severity of his punishment at the time but chose not to
appeal.
motivation behind the NJP,
While it fails to establish any discriminatory
Petitioner had the opportunity to appeal
but expresses his view that "the
Petitioner's application does
Petitioner admits to
:',
Subj:
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
IN THE CASE OF
establish that his punishment was consistent with that awarded
to another Marine for the same offense.
Conclusion.
Further,
We note Petitioner's honorable and faithful
The facts of this case, however, do not warrant
5.
service.
reconsideration of the handling of his NJP 44 years after the
fact.
the Government's interest in finality weighs
against Petitioner's request.
the requested relief be denied.
Accordingly,
we recommend that
2
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04078-00
action occurred on 30 June 1987 since administrative separation action was initiated on that same day due to your disciplinary actions, and other than the NJP of that day, the most recent such action was in January 1987, Additionally, it seems clear that some sort of disciplinary more than five months earlier. Point of contact is Mr. NAVMC re&est for removal 118(12) page 12 entries Director Manpower Management Information Systems Division 3 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05158-00
opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated 28 February 2001, a copy of which is attached. We recommend that the requested relief be denied. grade from sergeant to corporal, forfeiture of $780.00 pay per Petitioner was awarded reduction in Subj: BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS (BCNR) APPLICATION month for 2 months, and 60 days restriction.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03200-01
factors are present in this case. Department to cite Petitioner with breach of peace does not limit the Marine Corps' Additionally, both offenses alleged. Jurisdiction under Article 2 is not e. Petitioner's claim that his NJP was unjust because he had already paid a fine for the civilian offense is without merit.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05075-02
Petitioner's NJP. Based on the documentary evidence "that for good consideration and after Similarly, Petitioner was informed of his right to demand the NJP proceeding was conducted rec'eived all the rights to which he was Petitioner was advised of his right to counsel provided by Petitioner, properly and Petitioner entitled at NJP. Petitioner understanding his rights at NJP is the fact Petitioner also elected to have a s in fact p NJP, a had a right to submit written matters for...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08394-01
Petitioner c>aims his punishment was unjust 4. because he was never ordered not to buy a vehicle; even if he was given such an order, did not buy the car, rather he leased it; and finally, even if he was in the wrong, Petitioner believes his offense did not warrant reduction to LCpl and removal from MSG battalion. 3 Subj: BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS IN THE CASE 0 (BCNR) APPLICATION synopsis of the restrictions governing buying or renting vehicles while attached by Company...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00806-00
opinion furnished by the Assistant Staff Judge Advocate for Military Law, Headquarters Marine Corps dated 13 April 2000, a copy of which is enclosed. On 29 June 1987, Petitioner was convicted by a special court-martial of failure to obey a lawful order, willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer, resisting apprehension, and escape from custody in violation of Articles He was awarded confinement for 4 months, 90, 92 and 95 UCMJ. forwarding the case for appellate review, and he...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03015-01
On 15 June 2000, Petitioner was issued a Military Protective Order (MPO) directing him to have no contact with a female Marine. suicidal ideations provided a reasonable basis for the issuing authority in Petitioner's case to consider the ex of an MPO necessary. Petitioner's commanding officer, therefore, In this case, that Commanding officers have f. We note, however, that the forfeiture awarded Petitioner authorizes's forfeiture 5b(2) States (2000 Part V, paragraph 5c(8), MCM forfeitures...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01487-02
paygrade E-4, was awarded reduction to paygrade E-3, forfeiture of $600.00 pay per month for 2 The NJP authority suspended Enclosure (1) pertains. Based on the documentary evidence Moreover, Similarly, Petitioner was informed the NJP proceeding was conducted Petitioner makes no claim that her request for If Petitioner truly believed she was not guilty r-ights to which she was Petitioner was advised of her right to counsel provided by Petitioner, properly and Petitioner received all...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03660-02
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. On 11 November 1998, Petitioner made an official written statement to the officer assigned to conduct an investigation into the accident for the purpose of making a line of duty / misconduct determination. Petitioner's NJP or the conduct of his BOI.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06056-02
The petitioner has provided nothing to support his claim of injustice or that he was denied an opportunity to appeal the NJP (i.e., NJP occurred and was correctly recorded via the performance evaluation system. However, Petitioner did not appeal his punishment and does not claim that he was denied the right to do so. it is the NJP However, offenses.- C .