DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
B O A R D F O R C O R R E C T I O N O F N A V A L R E C O R D S
2 N A V Y A N N E X
W A S H I N G T O N D C 2 0 3 7 0 - 5 1 0 0
TJR
Docket No: 7702-01
10 May 2002
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 of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 7 May 2002. 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.
The Board found you enlisted in the Marine Corps on 3 March 1981
at the age of 17. Your record reflects that on 19 September 1981
you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failure to obey a
lawful order and were awarded a $100 forfeitl~re of pay.
Your record further reflects that during the period from 9 July
1982 to 8 November 1983 you received NJP on five occasions for
sleeping on post, breaking restriction, making a false official
statement, drinking on post, and disobedience. On 9 November
1983 you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of
damaging military property, causing $1,750 of damage to a safe,
and two specifications of unlawful entry. You were sentenced to
reduction to paygrade E-1, confinement at hard labor for three
months, a $900 forfeiture of pay, and a bad conduct discharge
(BCD) . The BCD was subsequently approved at all levels of
review, and on 5 July 1984 you were so discharged.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth and immaturity, and your contention that your
discharge should be upgraded since it has been 17 years since the
discharge was issued. However, the Board concluded these factors
and contention were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization
of your discharge because of your repetitive misconduct, which
resulted in six NJPs and a court-martial conviction. Further, no
discharge is upgraded merely due to the passage of time. Given
all the circumstances in your case, the Board concluded your
discharge was proper as issued 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
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07707-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 May 2002. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 09384-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 August 2003. You received NJP on 22 February 1992 for a 17 period of unauthorized absence (UA) and were awarded restriction and extra duty for 4 5 days and a $550 forfeiture of pay. However, the record does not reflect that any disciplinary action was taken for this period of UA.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07792-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 May 2002. 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 | CY2001 | 08114-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 May 2002. 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 16 September 1983 the discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed an other than honorable discharge, and on 21 September 1983 you were so...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06798-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 March 2002. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 01323-03
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 July 2003. However, on 3 October 1985 you were dropped from this counseling due to your non-amenability to treatment. 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 | CY2001 | 06958-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 April 2 0 0 2 . 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 21 December 1983 your commanding officer recommended you be separated under okher than honorable conditions due to drug abuse.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07210-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 April 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 | CY2002 | 00103-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 April 2002. 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. The record reflects that you served without incident until December 1980 when you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for possession of marijuana.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07488-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 April 2002. Your record reflects that on 21 August 1982 you began a period of unauthorized absence (UA) that was not terminated until you were apprehended by civil authorities on 9 April 1985. 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.