Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 09357-02
Original file (09357-02.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
                                    BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
                                                     2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
                                                                                                   LCC:ddj
Docket No: 9357-02
                                                                                                   19 February 2003





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 19 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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by CMC memorandum 1001 RAM of 4 February 2003, a copy of which is attached.

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. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion. 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

Enclosure





DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
         QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103    IN REPLY REFER TO:
          1001
         RAM
          FEB 04 2003

 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:
1.       After review of the BCNR application in the case of the following comments are provided.
2. On 20 March 2002, XXXXX was denied career designation status on the Active Reserve Program and would subsequently be released from active duty upon reaching his end of active service (EAS) date.
3.       On 20 July 2002, Headquarters Marine Corps received a request for reenlistment and if denied, a request for determination of separations pay.
4.       After review of his record, the following administrative remarks (pg 11 entries) were recorded:
a.       10 Jan 01: Counseled for pleading guilty to DUI
b.       24 Mar 01: Counseled for being held in the Hands of Civil Authorities for 4 days and for pleading guilty of abuse of spouse/person whom cohabitated with on 11 April
 01.
 c.       27 Apr 01: Counseled for failing to obey a lawful order given to you on 23 Mar 2001, in that SNI4 tried to make contact with after being ordered not to make any contact.
d.       2 Jun 01: Received non-judicial punishment for being UA for approximately 4 days.
e.       5 Oct 01: Counseled on failure to pay child support.
f.       16 Oct 01: Counseled for the numerous incidents that have brought discredit to yourself and the U.S. Marine Corps.
5.       As a result of these administrative remarks and after reviewing Appendix C MCO P1040.31H (Enlisted Career Planning and Retention Manual), it was determined on 30 July 2002 that XXXX
 rated half separations pay.

 6.       Within Appendix C of MCO P1040.31H, failed to maintain a performance record during his current enlistment that demonstrated the prestige and quality standards of the Marine Corps. Specifically his incidents that reflected discredit on the Marine Corps and his incident of personal irresponsibility to include abuse of a family member, or in this case abuse of a person whom he cohabitated with.




7.       After review of the Superior Court of California document that set aside XXXX conviction, it is still the opinion of this Division that he only rate half separations pay. This opinion is based on paragraphs 3 and 4 of the document, which state that his conviction remains a part of the court file and were to be prosecuted for any subsequent offense, the conviction in this current case may be pleaded and proved as a prior conviction. Also, even with the removal of his NJP and conviction of this one incident, XXXX overall record still fails to meet the high standards set within Appendix C of MCO P1040.31H.


                                                               W. DEAN PFEIFFER

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 03668-03

    Original file (03668-03.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 August 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. 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 | 00151-06

    Original file (00151-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.Sincere1yW. Staff Sergeant XXXX applied for reenlistment into the Marine Corps Reserve on 8 January 2003 in the pay grade of E-6 b. Per paragraph 5104.2 of reference (c) if enlisting within 12 months after separation from the Marine Corps or Marine Corps Reserve, applicants will be reappointed to the grade held at the...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600225

    Original file (MD0600225.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The incident that occurred on 1 Sep 01 was the one and only time that I have broken the law. 031028: Commandant of the Marine Corps (//s// Deputy Commandant for Manpower and Reserve Affairs) forwards Report of Nonjudicial Punishment to Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) for review and final action, recommending approval of Captain M_’s (Applicant) qualified resignation request and that his service be characterized as General (Under Honorable Conditions) with a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00991-02

    Original file (00991-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    As a result of this endorsement and Corporal request for a report date of 23 February 2001, CMC (RAM-2) published a set of orders on 17 January 2001 for Corporal Newsome ordering him to active duty (Enclosure (3)) effective 23 February 2001. Selected Marine Corps Reserve, accession to the AR program may disqualify you from this assignment. 36-month tour of active duty with the AR program to fill the following position: QUALITY ASSURANCE (6336) FORT WORTH TX 8820A...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501118

    Original file (MD0501118.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD05-01118 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050621. I work two jobs. The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge.

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600401

    Original file (MD0600401.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Head of the Alcohol Rehabilitation Department stated that although the Applicant had not complied with his Aftercare plan, he was not considered a treatment failure unless he returned to drinking or had another Alcohol Related Incident (ARI).031009: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-01473

    Original file (MD04-01473.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. I do believe help would have changed the outcome of my actions. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02795-01

    Original file (02795-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 material error or injustice. terminated NOE benefits his command, his retirement date was executed, his NOE the Marine Corps Reserve Support Command.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07708-01

    Original file (07708-01.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. Given all the circumstances of your case, the Board concluded your discharge, narrative reason for separation, and reenlistment code were proper and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07166-01

    Original file (07166-01.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removal of the contested fitness report for 1 January to 2 February 1996. The Board also considered your rebuttal letter dated 30 July 2002 with enclosures.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.In concluding that no further correction to your fitness report record...