DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
X
2 NAVY ANNE
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
S
0 TRG
Docket No: 8205-00
8 August 2001
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10 of the 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 8 August 2001.
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.
In addition, the Board considered the advisory
opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps, a copy of which
is enclosed.
Your allegations of error and
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
concerning the nonjudicial punishment you received on 13 October
1999.
officer did not abuse his discretion when he imposed punishment
which included in reduction in rank from CPL (E-4) to LCPL (E-3).
In addition, the Board concluded that the commanding
In this connection, the Board substantially
Accordingly, your application has been denied.
votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
The names and
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
qrror or injustice.
Sincerely,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
Enclosure
2
7)
DEPARTMENT OF THE
HEADQUAFtTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
NAVY
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON, DC 20380-1775
j
IN REPLY REFER TO:
1070
JAM4
1 1 JUN
2001
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:
BOARD FOR C
ION OF NAVAL
NCE CORPORAL
USMC
Ref:
(a) Article
15, UCMJ
1.
We are asked to provide an opinion on Petitioner's request
for the removal from his service record book (SRB) and official
military personnel file (OMPF) of all entries related to the
non-judicial punishment (NJP) he received on October
and restoration of all property, privileges, and rights affected
by that NJP.
We recommend that the requested relief be denied.
2.
analysis follows.
CAT ION
13, 1999
Our
Petitioner typed a promotion
Background.
During May 1999,
3.
warrant he knew to be false because the Marine was not due to be
promoted and the promotion warrant was not accompanied by any
supporting documents.
corporal, pay grade E-4,
by wrongfully typing an official document, in violation of
Articles 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
Petitioner was awarded a reduction to the pay grade of E-3,
forfeiture of
restriction.
Petitioner appealed.
$612.00 pay per month for 1 month, and
The forfeiture of pay was suspended for 6 months.
On 13 October 1999, Petitioner, then a
Petitioner's appeal was denied.
received NJP for intending to deceive
60 days
Analysis.
No legal error occurred in the imposition of NJP.
claims that his NJP was unjust because he
4.
Petitioner, however,
was just following the orders of his staff sergeant when he
typed the false official document.
without merit.
Investigations Division,
promotion warrant he typed was most likely false because he knew
the Marine was not due to be promoted and there were no
supporting documents.
orders,
be unlawful.
that duty to obey does not extend to orders they know to
Claiming that he was just following orders,
Petitioner stated that he knew the
In his interview with the Criminal
While Marines have a duty to obey lawful
Petitioner's argument is
j
Subj
:
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
F LANCE CORPORAL
USMC
(BCNR)
APPLICATION
therefore,
order to be unlawful.
does not provide a defense where Petitioner knew the
Conclusion.
Accordingly,
5.
recommend that the Petitioner's request for relief be denied.
for the reasons noted, we
Judge Advocate Division
Law Branch
2
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08387-01
Petitioner denied that the applicant Petitioner was offered, and he accepted, NJP. Analysis a. Petitioner claims that his NJP was unjust because he believes the preliminary inquiry into his misconduct contained "inconsistencies" a statement Petitioner made at the NJP. The record of the NJP reveals that the NJP was just.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04849-01
On 19 December 1997, 3. received NJP for unauthorized absence a&d disobedience of a lawful order- in violation of Articles 86 and 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice Petitioner, then a corporal, grade E-4, of $598.00 pay per month for 2 months. appeal was denied on 8 January 1998. was awarded reduction in grade to E-3 and The forfeiture was Petitioner's (UCMJ), respectively. Petitioner's appeal was denied on 8 (PT) by lawful written order and the Petitioner was assigned to 4.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03051-99
Petitioner's discharge as recommended. before a BOI. Petitioner's argument that he should not have been discharged because CG MCCDC had recommended against processing him for separation is without merit.
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 | 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 | 00841-02
Specifically, Petitioner told the investigating officer, “I am uncertain to which people were in my car, but I think it was LCpl, Cpl and a girl named To my knowledge, no one in my car exposed themselves to anyone at anytime.” c. On 2 March 2001, charges were preferred against Petitioner alleging dereliction of duty1, false official statement, disorderly conduct, and an indecent act, in violation of Articles 92(3), 107, and 134 of the. Subj: BOARD FOR CORRECTION O~ NAVAL RECORDS (BCNR)...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03117-01
Petitioner's claim that his NJP of 28 April 1987 should be expunged because he was subsequently tried by SPCM for the same offense is without merit. Petitioner's disobedience constituted a d. Petitioner's claim that his SPCM conviction should be Petitioner's Petitioner erroneously Neither his NJP on 28 April With respect to the NJP of 28 April 1987, expunged because it is the result of his refusing the punishment of an unjust NJP is without merit. Accordingly, we recommend that...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06339-01
second specification, because the verbal order given to him by his commanding officer, not to put salt in recruit canteens, conflicted with standard operating procedures follow the verbal order. Petitioner claims that the order was passed during command briefing where he was not present, and that neither the SOP nor the operations order addressed the issue. Petitioner's claim that his NJP was unjust because a verbal order given to him by his commanding officer, not to have Subj: BOARD 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 | CY1998 | 07865-98
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. b. Petitioner complains that his platoon commander was the "judge" of his competency review board. MARINE CORPS serve on Petitioner's competency review board, no matter how much or how little he knew about Petitioner's case.