Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 09567-03
Original file (09567-03.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100




 WDP crs wma
 Docket No.9567-03
July 12, 2004

MS XXXX


Dear Ms. XXXX :
This is in reference to your letter received by this Board on July 8, 2004, requesting reconsideration. You previously petitioned the Board and were advised in our letter of May 7, 2004, that your request had been denied.
Your letter has been carefully examined. Although at least some of the evidence you have submitted is new, it is not material. In other words, even if this information was presented to the Board, the decision would inevitably be the same. Accordingly, reconsideration is not appropriate at this time.
It is regretted that the facts and circumstances of your case are such that a more favorable reply cannot he made.
Sincerely,



W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
         DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100


 CRS
 Docket No: 9567-03
7 May 2004


MS XXXXX

Dear Ms. XXXX:
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 f or Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 May 2004. 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. Your medical records were not available for review.
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 2 February 1982 at age 17. The record reflects that you received three nonjudicial punishments. The offenses included an unauthorized absence of seven days, absence from your appointed place of duty on ten occasions, willful disobedience of a lawful order on three occasions, and dereliction of duty. Subsequently, on 13 August 1984 you attempted suicide with an overdose of ferrous sulfate.
On 20 August 1984 the commanding officer recommended that you be separated with an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. When informed of the recommendation, you elected to waive the right to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB). After review by the discharge authority, the recommendation for separation was approved and you were discharged on 14 September 1984 with an other than honorable discharge. At that time, you were assigned a reenlistment code of RE-4.









In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and the contention that your sexual trauma due to being raped caused or contributed to your misconduct. However, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge, given your record of frequent involvement with military authorities. In this regard, the Board noted that you were the subject of three disciplinary actions within a period of less than three years. Further, there is no evidence in the record, and you have submitted none, to show that you suffered from sexual trauma at the time of your service. Additionally, even if you did, there is no indication that the trauma caused an inability to know right from wrong or adhere to the right, or that it was sufficiently mitigating to warrant recharacterization. Further you waived the right to an ADB, your best opportunity to show that you should be retained or receive a better characterization of service.

Applicable regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code when an individual is discharged due to misconduct. Since you have been treated no differently than others in your situation, the Board could not find an error or injustice in the assignment of your reenlistment code.

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 | CY2003 | 09271-03

    Original file (09271-03.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 Boa d found the evidence submitted was insufficientto establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.You enlisted in the Navy on 4 October 1982 at age 21. However, on 29 August 1985 you received another...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 05149-03

    Original file (05149-03.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 reenlisted in the Navy on 14 November 1980 after three years of prior honorable service. On that...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 04520-06

    Original file (04520-06.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 reenlisted in the Navy on 8 June 1984 after six years of prior active...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 02418-04

    Original file (02418-04.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In March 2004, Gunnery Sergeant XXXX petitioned the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) for “Promotion to the rank of Master Sergeant, E8, back pay and retirement,” In May 2004, after careful consideration of his request, the Board found insufficient evidence to grant his request. DEAN PFEIFFEREnclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100WJH Docket No 2418-04 September 22, 2005SENATOR ELIZABETH DOLE UNITED STATES...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06218-06

    Original file (06218-06.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, regulation 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 injusticeThe Board found that YOU reenlisted in the Navy on 15 November 2002 after more than three years of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 00605-06

    Original file (00605-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    By correspondence dated 14 November 2003 (copy at Tab B), Petitioner was advised that his selection by the CY 2003 Gunnery Sergeant Selection Board had been revoked for unspecified “unprofessional conduct and poor judgment” exhibiting failure to maintain the high standards expected of a Marine Corps staff noncommissioned officer.e. Enclosure (7) documents that a member of the Board’s staff contacted the HQMC Enlisted Promotion Section and was informed that had Petitioner’s selection by the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 05160-03

    Original file (05160-03.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 27 September 1973 at age 17. Your commanding officer then recommended a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08196-01

    Original file (08196-01.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. of the recommendation, your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB). 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 | CY2014 | NR4503 14

    Original file (NR4503 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 May 2015. 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. Subsequently, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02401-06

    Original file (02401-06.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.Your DD Form 214 indicates that you enlisted in the Navy on 16 June 1987 and served continuously on...