D E P A R T M E N T OF T H E N A V Y
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
ELP
Docket No. 103-02
19 April 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 Navy Records,
sitting in executive session, considered your application on
17 April 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 that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice.
The Board found that you enlisted in the Marine Corps on
30 June 1980 for four years at age 18. The record reflects that
you served without incident until December 1980 when you received
nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for possession of marijuana. You
served during the next 18 months without further incident and
were advanced to LCPL (E-3). However, during the four month
period from July to November 1982, you received two more NJPs for
use of marijuana and a brief period of UA of about an hour. On
14 February 1983 you were formally counseled for writing checks
with insufficient funds.
On 25 April 1983 you were convicted by general court-martial of
stealing $73, two specifications of possession of marijuana, and
two specifications of distributing marijuana. You were sentenced
to confinement at hard labor for 15 months, total forfeitures,
reduction in rank to W T (E-2), and a bad conduct discharge. The
Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review affirmed the findings
and the sentence on 15 August 1984. On 11 September 1984 the
Court of Military Appeals set aside as multiplicious the two
specifications of possession of marijuana, but affirmed the
sentence. You received the bad conduct discharged on 30 October
1984.
In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and immaturity
and the fact that it has been more than 17 years since you were
discharged. The Board noted your statement; the letters from
your wife, daughter, and pastor; the letters of reference
attesting to your character, sobriety, and good post-servlce
conduct; and your work with recovering alcoholics and addicts.
The Board noted your contentions to the effect that you received
a harsher sentence than many of the individuals with whom you
were confined, you were charged with additional offenses that
were untrue, and your lawyer did not work in your best interest
and failed to follow through on your list of character witnesses.
The Board concluded that the foregoing factors and contentions
were insufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge
given your record of three NJPs, two of which were for drugs, and
the serious nature of the offense of which you were convicted by
general court-martial. The Board is prohibited by law from
reviewing the findings of a court-martial and must restrict its
review to determining if the sentence should be reduced as a
matter of clemency. In other words, claims that you were not
guilty of certain offenses, counsel was incompetent or did not
act in your best interest, or other mistakes of law were made,
cannot be considered by the Board because that is the purpose of
an appeal. The Board noted that your case was reviewed by the
Court of Military Appeals, which dismissed two specifications as
multiplicious, but did not change the sentence. Your conviction
of the remaining offenses and the punitive discharge were
effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations, and
the discharge appropriately characterizes your service.
Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and
votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
You are advised that personal appearance hearings are rarely
granted by the Board and only when, in executive session, it
determines the issues cannot be resolved without the individual's
presence, or the individual's appearance would serve some useful
purpose. Your presence was not required for the Board to make a
decision .
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 | CY2000 | 06134-00
A three-member panel for the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 March 2001. * You were advanced to RM3 (E-4), extended your enlistment for an additional period of four months, and served without further incident until 15 March 1982, when you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for use of marijuana. Counsel also noted that the senior member of the ADB was not an 0-4 line officer.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07506-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 3 May 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. You served for a year without disciplinary incident, but on 3 1 December 1 9 8 1 , you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for dereliction in...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00327-01
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. However, during the seven month period from March 1973 to October 1973 you received four nonjudicial punishments ( N J P ) and were convicted by a summary court-martial. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
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 | CY2002 | 07617-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 May 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. On 28 August 1983 the discharge authority then directed an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse, and on 30 August...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08758-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 8 ' ~ u n e 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 | CY2001 | 00181-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 June 2001. 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 | CY1998 | 04225-98
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Na-1 Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 July 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...