Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05461-02
Original file (05461-02.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                           DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
                    BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
                                2 NAVY ANNEX
                          WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100




                                                       TJR
                                                       Docket No: 5461-02
                                                       27 February 2003







    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 25 February
    2003. 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 29 May 1979 at the age of 18. On 7
    November 1979 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for wrongful
    appropriation and two specifications of assault. The punishment imposed
    was a $300 forfeiture of pay and reduction to paygrade E-1. You then
    served without further disciplinary incident until 25 September 1980,
    when you received NJP for resisting apprehension and resisting a search.
    The punishment imposed was a $400 forfeiture of pay, restriction for
    five days, and reduction to paygrade E-1.

    On 20 February and again on 15 October 1981 you received NJP for a four
    day period of unauthorized absence (UA) and absence from your appointed
    place of duty.

    During the period from 23 March to 11 May 1982 you received NJP on three
    occasions for failure to obey a lawful order, two specifications of
    disrespect, two specifications of breaking restriction, failure to go to
    your appointed place of duty, and disobedience.












Subsequently, on 19 May 1982, you were notified of pending administrative
separation action by reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement of a
discreditable nature with military authorities. At that time you waived
your right to consult with legal counsel and to present your case to an
administrative discharge board. On 1 June 1982 your commanding officer
recommended an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due a
frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities.
On 14 June 1982 the discharge authority directed an other than honorable
discharge by reason of misconduct, and on 20 July 1982 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 you were not given the opportunity to
defend yourself. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors and
contention were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your
discharge because of your repetitive misconduct which resulted in seven
NJPs. Further, the Board noted that the record shows that you were given an
opportunity to defend yourself, but waived your procedural rights.
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










                                      2

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07972-07

    Original file (07972-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 September 2008. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04616-07

    Original file (04616-07.rtf) 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.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 Navy on 8 September 1982 at age 23 and served without disciplinary incident until...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02971-07

    Original file (02971-07.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 February 2008. 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. As a result, on 30 September 1982, the discharge authority directed your commanding officer to hold your separation in abeyance pending...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06346-07

    Original file (06346-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 April 2008. 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 | CY2006 | 01113-07

    Original file (01113-07.rtf) 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.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 Navy on 1 December 1977 at age 18 and served without disciplinary incident until 8...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06717-10

    Original file (06717-10.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 April 2011. 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 | CY2007 | 03814-07

    Original file (03814-07.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 3 January 1982 the discharge authority directed discharge under honorable conditions by reason of drug abuse. 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 | CY2007 | 03811-07

    Original file (03811-07.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 February 2008. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 11345-07

    Original file (11345-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 November 2008. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04156-11

    Original file (04156-11.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 February 2012. On 5 July 1982 the discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct, and on 19 July 1982, you were so discharged. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...