Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 02269-04
Original file (02269-04.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100



 FC
Docket No: 2269-04
2 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 28 July 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 as ~risuffi~~~ ntr c. ~ bii~ th ~ C~ II t )IAidD 1fl __ ~rror or injustice.
The Board found that enlisted in the Marine Corps Reserve on 29 October and commenced six months of active duty for training at age 17. On 8 December 1972 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for disrespect, and you were awarded correctional custody that was suspended for sixty days. On 11 April 1973 you were dropped from a military occupational specialty school due to conduct, attitude, and lack of desire. On 1 May 1973 you were released from active duty, and transferred to the Marine Corps Reserve with an honorable characterization of service. On that same day, you signed a notice of obligated service form acknowledging that you had a reserve obligation until 28 October 1978.
During the period from 7 November 1976 to 5 June 1977 you were absent for 24 drills and for two weeks of active duty for training. On 29 June 1977 the commanding officer recommended that you be assigned to an incremental period of 45 days of involuntary active duty for training due to unsatisfactory participation in the Marine Corps Reserve Program. On 17 September 1977 your orders for involuntary active duty for training were cancelled because of your failure to comply.




On 30 October 1977 you were notified of administrative separation action by reason of misconduct based upon an established pattern of shirking. On 2 November 1977 you signed a certified receipt acknowledging the notification of administrative separation processing, and that an administrative discharge board (ADB) was scheduled to consider your case on 12 November 1977. On 12 November 1977 you failed to report to the ADB. On 17 November 1977 the commanding officer recommended an other than honorable discharge by reason of an established pattern of shirking. On 13 December 1977 a Staff Judge Advocate reviewed your case, and found it sufficient in law and fact. On 15 December 1977 the separation authority directed an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to an established pattern of shirking. On 17 December 1977 you were so separated.
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 Reserve, and your unsubstantiated contentions that you were assigned to Marine Fighter Squadron One Hundred Twelve (VMF—112) for ten months without written orders, and that your name was forged on several pages of your service record. However, the Board found that these factors and unsubstantiated contentions were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of your established pattern of shirking. The Board also noted that you failed to appear before the ADB when notified of administrative separation processing. 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,




















Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02632-02

    Original file (02632-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 September 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures.applicable to the proceedings of this Board. your received a letter from commanding On 19 December 1973, officer by certified mail concerning your missed drills of 7 December 1973. concerning your missed drills, however, you never responded to On 20 January 1974...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06735-08

    Original file (06735-08.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 16 March 1978, you were so discharged. 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 | CY2013 | NR4009 13

    Original file (NR4009 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 April 2014. 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 | CY2011 | 01347-11

    Original file (01347-11.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 January 2012. 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 | CY2010 | 12184-10

    Original file (12184-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 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. Your case was forwarded recommending that you be discharged under other than honorable (OTH) conditions by reason of misconduct.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03983-01

    Original file (03983-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    1552 (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments (2) Case Summary (3) Subject's naval record From : To: Subj: Ref: Encl: Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a 1. former enlisted member of the Marine Corps Reserve filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that his record be corrected to show a better discharge than the discharge under other than honorable conditions issued on 10 April 1985. which was the expiration of his Petitioner remained in Vpon expiration of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8881 13

    Original file (NR8881 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 September 2014. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5350 14

    Original file (NR5350 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 20 May 2015. 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. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 11827-08

    Original file (11827-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    | A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 October 2009. On 30 February 1979 you were so discharged. 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 | CY2013 | NR2441-13

    Original file (NR2441-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your ; application on 25 February 2014. 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 found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant any change in your discharge given your five NUP‘s, one of...