Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07792-01
Original file (07792-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
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: 7792-01 
15 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 14 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. 

You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 8 June 1981 at the age of 17. 
Your record reflects that on 4 February 1982 you were convicted 
by summary court-martial (SCM) for possession of marijuana and 
sentenced to a $367 forfeiture of pay, reduct~on to paygrade E - 1 ,  
and confinement at hard labor for 30 days. 

During the period from 3 January to 24 February you received 
nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on three occasions for absence from 
your appointed place of duty, failure to obey a lawful order, 
breaking restriction, and disobedience.  On 7 March 1983 you were 
convicted by SCM of breaking restriction and sentenced to 
confinement at hard labor for a month, reduction to paygrade E-1, 
and a $191 forfeiture of pay.  On 31 May 1983 you were again 
convicted by SCM of a 29 day period of unauthorized absence (UA). 
You were sentenced to a $372 forfeiture of pay and confinement at 
hard labor for 30 days. 

On 5 July 1983 you were notified of pending administrative 
separation action by reason of misconduct.  At that time you 
waived your rights to consult with legal counsel and to present 
your case to an administrative discharge board.  On 18 August 
1983 your commanding officer recommended an other than honorable 
discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct 
as evidenced by your failure to conform.  On 8 July 1983 the 
discharge authority directed an other than honorable discharge by 
reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.  On 29 
August 1983 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, post service conduct, and character 
reference letters.  The Board also considered your contentions 
that your ability to serve was impaired by your personal problems 
and drug and alcohol abuse; that had you received proper 
counselling for your drug and alcohol abuse, you would not have 
received a discharge under other than honorable conditions; and 
that your disciplinary infractions were mostly minor in nature. 
However, the Board concluded these factors and contentions were 
not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge 
because of the serious nature of your repetithe drug related 
misconduct.  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 



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06684-01

    Original file (06684-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 March 2001. 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. A year later, on 12 April 1968, you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of three periods of unauthorized absence (UA) totalling 62 days and breaking...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07707-01

    Original file (07707-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2001 | 07702-01

    Original file (07702-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 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. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 09384-02

    Original file (09384-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | 08556-01

    Original file (08556-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 20 October 1960 you submitted a written request for immediate execution of the BCD. 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 | 06601-01

    Original file (06601-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 March 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03764-01

    Original file (03764-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your allegations of error and 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& appointed place of duty On 25 October 1983 vou received was On 15 November 1983 the BCD was to be executed, Subsequently, the suspension of the forfeitures and BCD were vacated. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden‘is...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10974-02

    Original file (10974-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 October 2003. On 24 June 1968 you were convicted by SCM of a 15 day period of UA and sentenced to a $65 forfeiture of pay and confinement at hard labor for 30 days. 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 | CY1998 | 07823-98

    Original file (07823-98.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 May 1999. 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 | CY2002 | 10975-02

    Original file (10975-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 October 2 0 0 3 . 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. Subsequently, your request for discharge was granted and on 26 June 1984 you received an other than honorable discharge in lieu of trial by...