Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 0616-02
Original file (0616-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENTOFTHE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVYANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

CRS
Docket No: 6161-02
19 December 2002

application for correction of your
provisions of Title 10, United

This is in reference to your
naval record pursuant to the
States Code, Section 1552.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 11 December 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 27
August 1979.
nonjudicial punishments.
duty, absence from your appointed place of duty on two
possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia, willful
disobedience of a lawful order,
Thereafter, you were separated under honorable
license.
conditions and transferred to the Marine Corps Reserve.
Character of service is based, in part,
proficiency averages,
assigned during periodic evaluations.
proficiency averages were 3.7 and 4.1, respectively. A minimum
average conduct mark of 4.0 was required for a fully honorable
characterization of service at the time of separation.
In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors,
such as your youth and immaturity
and the contention that you were told that the discharge would be

on one's conduct and
Your conduct and

both of which are computed from marks

The record reflects that you received five

The offenses included dereliction of

occasions,

and driving on a suspended

However, the Board concluded that

The names and votes of the members of the panel will be

upgraded after six months.
these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization
of your discharge given the five disciplinary actions as well as
the fact that your conduct average was insufficiently high to
warrant fully honorable discharge.
In this regard, no law or
regulations provides for upgrading a discharge based solely on
the passage of time.
Accordingly, your application has been
denied.
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 | CY2001 | 02418-00

    Original file (02418-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 August 2000. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Consequently, when...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03036-01

    Original file (03036-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 January 2002. average conduct mark of 4.0 was required for a fully honorable characterization of service at the time of separation. 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 | CY2002 | 06307-01

    Original file (06307-01.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. insufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your record of two conviction, and your failure to achieve the required average in conduct. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11122-06

    Original file (11122-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 February 2007. 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. Minimum average marks of 4.0 in conduct and 3.8 in proficiency were required for a fully honorable characterization of service at the time of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09580-06

    Original file (09580-06.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 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 24 March 1964. Prior to being assigned to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 04412-08

    Original file (04412-08.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 February 2009. 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. Given the seriousness of your offenses that resulted in five disciplinary actions and your failure to attain the conduct mark average required...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 00426-07

    Original file (00426-07.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.On 13 May 1958 you enlisted in the Marine Corps Reserve at age 22 after a prior period of honorable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08055-01

    Original file (08055-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    application for correction of your provisions of Title 10, United of the Board for Correction of Naval executive session, considered your member 2002. Your conduct and were 3.66 and 5.58, respectively. 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 | 04695-98

    Original file (04695-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 August 1999. The record further reflects two periods of UA from 2-10 June and 22-23 June 1971, for which no disciplinary action is shown in the record. 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 | 01134-01

    Original file (01134-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...