Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 01262-04
Original file (01262-04.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
         BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
                           FC
                                                                                          Docket No: 1262-04
                                                                                          9 August 2004


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 4 August 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.
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of p7rohahl material error or injus i~e.
The Board found that you enlisted in the Marine Corps on 31 April 1997 at age 19. You served without disciplinary incident until 24 Agusut 1998, when you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failure to obey an order and drinking on duty. You were awarded restriction, extra duty, and a reduction to paygrade E-2. On 23 May 2000 you received a second NJP for a 28-day period of unauthorized absence (UA). You were awarded restriction and extra duty. A portion of the punishment was suspended for six months. On 14 September 2000 you received a third NJP for absence from your appointed place of duty and failure to obey an order. You were awarded restriction, extra duty, forfeitures of pay, a reduction to paygrade E-2.
On 15 September 2000 you were the subject of a psychiatric evaluation. The attending psychiatrist diagnosed you as having an adjustment disorder with a depressed mood and antisocial traits. He also diagnosed you as an alcohol abuser. The psychiatrist recommended that you attend stress management classes and alcohol rehabilitation, and concluded that you were psychologically fit for duty. On 7 January 2000 you were counseled about deficiencies in your conduct and performance, and warned of the consequences of continued misconduct. On 19 December 2000 you completed intensive outpatient treatment for alcohol dependence with a fair prognosis.



On 9 February 2001 you received a fourth NJP for absence from your appointed place of duty. You were awarded restriction, extra duty, and forfeitures of pay.
On 23 February 2001 you were notified of administrative separation processing and you elected to obtain copies of documents forwarded to the separation authority supporting the basis for the proposed separation. On 26 February 2001 the commanding officer recommended an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. On 5 March 2001 the separation authority directed an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct and on 9 March 2001, you were so discharged.
In its review of your case, the Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors such as your youth, the length of time that has passed since you were discharged from the Marine Corps, and your contention that your family was experiencing problems that required your presence. However, the Board found that these factors and contention were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of your record of misconduct that resulted in four NJPs. 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 Boatd. 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,





Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 07727-11

    Original file (07727-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considere@a your -application on 2 August 2011. 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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge or a change of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04252-01

    Original file (04252-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Docket No: 4252-01 23 November 2001 .This is in reference to your naval record pursuant to the States Code, Section 1552. application for correction of your provisions of Title 10, United A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 November 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered...

  • 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 | CY2007 | 07721-07

    Original file (07721-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 TIR Docket No: 7721-07 18 August 2008 This is in reference to naval record pursuant to the States Code, Section 1552. your application for correction of your provisions of Title 10, United A three-member panel of the Boar Records, sitting in executive se application on 12 August 2008. injustice were reviewed in accor regulations and procedures appli Board. Further, an RE-4 reenlistment code is...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05186-10

    Original file (05186-10.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 July 2010. 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 following month, on 13 August 2009, you received NIP for absence from your appointed place of duty and were awarded a $1,168 forfeiture of pay...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 00142-03

    Original file (00142-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 October 2003. On 16 October 1980 an ADB recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct. 2 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 | 03764-01

    Original file (03764-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your allegations of error and 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& appointed place of duty On 25 October 1983 vou received was On 15 November 1983 the BCD was to be executed, Subsequently, the suspension of the forfeitures and BCD were vacated. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden‘is...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07978-02

    Original file (07978-02.PDF) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 10 June 1985 you received your third NJP for disobedience and were awarded a $200 forfeiture of pay. On ason of !you were ation, % At that time you On 30 July 1985, after present your case to an administrative discharge board 22 June 1985 an ADB recommended a general discharge by r misconduct. 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 | 09492-02

    Original file (09492-02.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 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. On 8 June 1981 the discharge authority directed an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04638-02

    Original file (04638-02.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. On 15 January 1985 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for larceny and were awarded a $300 forfeiture of pay, a portion of which was suspended for six months. Shortly thereafter, on 28 October 1987, you received The reduction and forfeitures were suspended for six The punishment...