Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10413-02
Original file (10413-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE  NAVY 

B O A R D   FOR  C O R R E C T I O N  O F   N A V A L   RECORDS 

2  N A V Y   ANNEX 

W A S H I N G T O N   DC  2 0 3 7 0 - 5 1 0 0  

FC 
Docket No: 10413-02 
12 May 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 30 April 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 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 26 May 
1993 at age 21.  On 27 February 1996 you extended your enlistment 
for 17 months.  On 24 October 1998 you reenlisted.  On 6 July 
2001 you reenlisted again. 

In January 2002, you graduated from recruiting school.  On 5' 
February 2002, you were interviewed by your officer-in-charge 
(OIC) after you made a suicidal statement to a prospective 
recruit.  At that counseling session, you advised the OIC th.at 
you did not mean to make that statement and that you would 
att'empt to do your job.  On 5 March 2002 you were counseled 
concerning your refusal to perform duties as a recruiter.  On 13 
March 2002 you were counseled again on this issue. 

On 19 April 2002 you were charged with willfully disobeying 
lawful orders to perform your job as a recruiter.  On 20 May 2002 
you requested administrative separation in lieu of trial by court 
martial.  Prior to submitting this request, you conferred with a 
qualified military  lawyer at which time you were advised of your 
rights and warned of the probable adverse consequences of 
accepting such a discharge.  On 30 May 2002 the commanding 
officer forwarded your request for discharge recommending 
approval with a characterization of service as other than 
honorable.  On 4 June 2002 the staff judge advocate concurred 
with the commanding officer's recommendation.  On 6 June 2002 the 
separation authority approved your request and directed that you 
be reduced to paygrade E-3 and separated with an ,>ther than 
honorable discharge for the good of the service.  On 25 June 
2002, you were so discharged.  At that time, you were assigned a 
reenlistment code of RE-4. 

On 7 November 2002, the Commandant of the Marine Corps  (CMC) made 
a determination that your reenlistment code was properly 
assigned. 

In its review of your case, The Board carefully weighed all 
potentially mitigating  factors, such as your overall excellent 
record, and your desire to serve again. However, given your 
request for administrative discharge in lieu of trial by court 
martial, the Board concluded that these factors were not 
sufficient to warrant a change in your reenlistment code.  In 
this regard, assignment of that code is required when an 
individual is discharged in lieu of trial.  Accordingly, your 
application has been denied.  The names and votes of the members 
of the panel will be furnished upon request. 

The Board did not consider whether the characterization of 
service or reason for your separation should be changed, since 
you did not ask for such consideration and you have not 
exhausted your administrative remedy by applying to the Naval 
Discharge and Review Board  (NDRB).  You may apply to NDRB by 
submitting the attached DD Form 293. 

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 



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02682-02

    Original file (02682-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 April 2002. 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. 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 | CY2002 | 02767-02

    Original file (02767-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801822

    Original file (MD0801822.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.Isolated incident. The Board determinedthe awarded discharge characterization was appropriate and an upgrade in the characterization of servicebased on an isolated incident or that his command failed him would be inappropriate.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901062

    Original file (ND0901062.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Representation: By a vote of the Characterization shall .By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY.Discussion The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600346

    Original file (ND0600346.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). 040409: The Commander, Navy Region Southwest, exercising GCMCA, granted the request for an administrative separation in lieu of a trial by court-martial, and directed Applicant’s discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial with a characterization of service as under other than honorable conditions. You may view DoD Instruction 1332.28 and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08197-01

    Original file (08197-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06070-01

    Original file (06070-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 March 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. On 26 March 1996, this Board denied your requests for further recharacterization of your service, and changes in your narrative reason for...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00784-02

    Original file (00784-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 March 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 | 02182-02

    Original file (02182-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 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. The Board did not consider whether your characterization of service or reason for separation should be changed, since you did not ask for such...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00430-02

    Original file (00430-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 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. You claimed recurrent suicidal ideation since arriving at recruit training and stabbed yourself because "Nobody would listen to me...now they are listening."