DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 N A V Y A N N E X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
FC
Docket No: 01820-03
2 1 August 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 13 August 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.
1986 you reenlisted in the Navy after more than
prior honorable service. You then served without
3 December 1993, when you were counseled
On 1 5 February
three years of
incident a x i l
concerning writing worthless checks. On 20 January 1994 you
were counseled again concerning failure to pay a legal debt. On
30 June 1994 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for
writing a check without sufficient funds, and were awarded a
suspended reduction to paygrade E-5. On 11 July 1994 you were
counseled for a third time concerning writing worthless checks
and displaying an inability to manage personal funds.
On 1 8 October 1994 you received a special evaluation which
stated that you were being processed for an administrative
separation under other than honorable conditions, and further
noted that you had violated the Navy's policy on hazing. You
received marks of 2 . 8 in the marking categories of reliability,
personal behavior, and human relations; and with an.overall
average of 2.8. However, it appears that the command did not
continue the processing for an administrative discharge since
you were honorably discharged and assigned a reenlistment code
of RE-4 when you completed your enlistment on 30 March 1995.
In its review of your case, the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors such as your honorable
characterization of service. However, because of your
misconduct involving financial management resulting in three
counseling sessions and a NJP, the Board concluded that there is
no error or injustice in your reenlistment code. The Board also
noted that you could have received an other than honorable
discharge had your command followed through with the
administrative separation processing for commission of a serious
offense. Therefore, you were fortunate to have received an
honorable discharge. 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,
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501545
Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Character Reference ltr from T_ T. C_ (Applicant), undated, not signedNational Personnel Records Check for Applicant, dtd November 4, 2005 Ltr form National Personnel Records Center, dtd February 13, 2006 Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Service 2) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: None Active:...
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500829
The Applicant requests his characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION When the service of a member of the U.S. Navy has met the standard of acceptable conduct and performance, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 02029-03
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 Headquarters Marine Corps dated 3 March 2003, a copy of which is attached. concurs in the professional evaluation of - qualifi- cations for reenlistment at the time of separation.
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600214
The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions) and that the Narrative Reason for Separation be changed. The separation authority directed that the Applicant be discharge by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. The Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial for violation...
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500740
The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to “financial hardship.” The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. The Applicant requested that the Board change the narrative reason for his separation to "Financial Hardship", stating that he requested separation due to such hardship and was supported in this request by his Master Chief at the time. As of this...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08151-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 April 2010. However, the Board concluded that your general discharge should not be changed due to your NUP and weight control problems. 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.
USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00769
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-PVT, USMC Docket No. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Letter from Applicant (4pgs) Reference Letters (3) Copies of DD Form 214 (2) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USMC None Inactive: USMCR(J) 870828 - 880726 COG Period of...
USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1000556
Representation: By a vote of the Characterization shall .By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .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 presumption, to include...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07760-07
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 the Headquarters, Marine Corps, Performance Evaluation Review Branch dated 20 August 2007, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800560
The Board determined an upgrade was not warranted.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found Pertinent Regulation/Law A. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of...