DEP~RTMENT OF THE NAVY
                   BOARD FOI~i CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS


I
     2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 CRS
                                                      Docket No: 5016-04
                                                      25 March 2005








       This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval
       record pursuant to 3zhe provisions of Title 10 of the United States
       Code, section 1552.

       A three-member panel of t~ie Board for Correction of Naval Records,
       sitting in execu~ive session, considered your application on 23 March
       2905. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed i
       accordance with administrative regulations and procedure applicable
       to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary mater 4al considered by
       the Board consisted of your application, togethez with all material
       submitted in support thereof, your naval recor~ and applicable
       statutes, regulations and policies. In additio~i, the Board
       considered the advisory opinions furnished by Hea~quarters Marine
       Corps dated 14 September and 4 November 004, copies of which are
       attached.

       After careful and conscie~i tious consideration of the entire record,
       the Board found t~at the evidence submitted was insufficient to
       establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. In
       t~is connection the Board substantially concurred with the commen s
       contained in the advisory opinions. Accordingly, your applica1~ ion
       has been denied. The names and votes of the members of t1~ie panel
       will be furnished upon request.

       It is regretted that the ircumstances of your case are such that
       favorable action cannot b~ taken. You are entitled to have the Board
       reconsider its deci ion upon submission of new and material evidence
       or other matter i~iot previously considered by the Board. In this
       regard, it is imp~rtant to keep in mind that a presumption of
       regularity attaches to all official records. Consequently, when
       applyi ~g for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is
       on ~he applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable mat q rial
       error or injustice.

                                 Sincerely,
                                      c
                                     w.
                                  Executive
       Enclosures
                           DE ARTMENT OF THE NAVY
                   HEADQU TERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
                                 2NAVYANNEX
                          ASHINGTON, DC 20380-1775






     MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL
                         RECORDS

       Subj:      BOARD FOR CORRECT ON OF NAVAL RECORDS (BCNR) APPLICATION
             IN THE CASE OF E
                                                                      IN
                                                                      REPLY
                                                                      REFER
                                                                      TO:

                                                                      1070
                                                                      JAM6
                                                                   j~y c.~ 4
                                                                   74~it

     stating
       1. We are asked to provide an opinion on Petitioner’s request that
       her reenlistment cc e be changed from an RE-4’ to an RE-i2 and that
       she be reinstated to the rank of lance corporal.

     2. We recommend that Petitioner’s request for relief be denied. Our
     analysis follows.

     3. Background. On 10 December 2001, Petitioner received NJP for
     dereliction in the performance of duties and destruction of personal
     property, in vio~L ation of Articles 92 and 109, of the Uniform Code
     of Military ~Justice (UCMJ). Petitioner was awarded reduction to
     private firs ~c1ass, forfeiture of $558.00 pay per month for 2 months,
     restr ction for 30 days and extra duties for 7 days. Forfeiture of $5
     8.00 pay per month for 2 months and restriction for 30 days w~re
     suspended for 6 months. Petitioner did not appeal.

     4. Analysis. Petitioner~s request is without any basis. No legal or
     administrative o curred in the imposition of the NJP. Petitioner had
     the opport nity to consult with legal counsel, was advised of her
     right o refuse NJP and her right to appeal her NLJP. Petitioner acce
     ted NJP and did not subsequently appeal.

     Petitioner also makes cla ms concerning other individuals’ misconduct
     and the punish ent that they received. These claims are without merit.
     The a leged misconduct of other individuals within Petitioner’s unit
     oes not absolve her from accountability for her ow misconduct. Since
     it is the commanders responsibility for maintaining good order and
     discipline, a commander’s personal discretion in evaluating the
     appropriate punishment in each case should be given deference.


     1 Not recommended for re-enlistment.
     2
     Recommended and eligible for re~enlistment.
4
Subj: BOARD FOR CORRECT ON OF NAVAL RECORDS (BCNR) APPLICATION



Finally, as for Petition~r’s request that her reenlistment code be changed,
we concur witFh the Performance Evaluation Review Branch comments that
Petltioner’s code was correctly assigned and that the codes are nQt
routinely changed or upgraded as a result of events that ocç~ur after
separation or based merely on the passage of time. Pet4tioner, along with
the NJP, received a page 11 counseling entry dated 7 Aug 00 for not being
at her appointed place of duty. The Petitioner was properly counseled in
accordance with the Ir~dividual Records Administration Manual (IRAN) that
she was not t~eing recommended for reenlistment based upon her conduct as a
MalTine. Petitioner was provided an opportunity to make a st~tement and
chose not to.

5.    Conclusion. Accordii~gly, we recommend that the requested relief be
denied.




                                     tjead, Military Law Branch
                                     Judge Advocate Division


























                                     .2
                           D ~PARTMENT OF THE NAVY
                   HEADQU RTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

                              3~8O RUSSELL ROAD

I)
      Qt~ANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103    iN REPLY REFER TO:
                                        1040

MMER/RE
                                 SEP 14 2004

     MEMORANDUM FOR THE      EXECWTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
                          NAVAI~J RECORDS

     Subj:  BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF FORMER ~
                                            SUBJ:  RECODE

     End:   (1) NAVMC 118(11)
      (2)   NAVMC      l18(ll)a
      (3)   NAVMC      1l8(l1)~
      (4)   NAVMC      118(12) of 10 Dec 99

     1.     ‘ service record has been reviewed and it has been determined
     that her reenlistment code of RE-4 was correctly assigned. The
     reenlistmqnt code was assigned based on her overall record and means
     that she was not recommended for reenlistment at the time of
     separation.

     2.     was honora~ply discharged on December 16, 2001 by reason of
     Completion of Required Active Service. A review of her service record
     indicates that she was counseled concerning not being at her appointed
     p]~ace of duty, and not being recommended for reenlistment because of
     conduct unbecoming a Marine. The disciplinary portion of Ier record
     shows she received one nonjudicial punishment under the Uniform Code of
     Military Justice for offenses which incluc~ed dereliction in the
     performance of duties, and destruction of personal property. It is also
     noted that on November 20, 2001, she signed an official service record
     book entry acknowledging assignment of the RE-4 reenlistment code.
     Enclosures (1) thrpugh (4) pertain.

     3.     After a review of all relevant information, this Headquarters
     concurs in the profession~i evaluation o
     cations for reenlistment ~t the time of separation. Once a code is
     correctly assigned it is not routinely changed or upgraded as a result
     of events that o~cur after separation or based merely on the passage of
     time.




                                        Head, Performance Evaluation
                                        Review Branch
                                        Personnel Management Division
                                        By direction of the Commandant
                                        of the Marine Corps