Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 03286-05
Original file (03286-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370~5 100


 SMW
 Docket No: 3286-05
 9 March 2006






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 8 March 2006. 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, advisory opinion, 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 Marine Corps on 17 December 1973 at age 17 with parental consent. On 1 April 1974 you joined Second Battalion, Eighth Marines and began serving with Company G. During the period from 2 July to 9 September 1974 you received two nonjudicial punishments (NJP’s) . Your offenses included two instances of absence from your appointed place of duty and an unauthorized absence (UA) of about three days.
On 10 September 1974 you were reassigned to Company E, and during the period from 27 September 1974 to 4 June 1975 you received four NJP’s. Your offenses included leaving your appointed place of duty, absence from your appointed place of duty, failure to check out on liberty, two instances of disobedience of a lawful order, and having an unauthorized haircut. On 4 June 1975 you were counseled regarding your deficiencies and warned that an administrative discharge would be processed if there was no immediate improvement. On 12 June 1975 you received NJP for failing to walk your post.
 On 17 June 1975 the commanding officer informed you by service record entry that you were being recommended for an undesirable discharge by reason of unfitness due to frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities, but you refused to sign the entry. On 26 June 1975 suspended punishment from the NJP that you received on 5 May 1975 was vacated for cause.
On 31 July 1975 you were reassigned to Company F. On 27 August 1975 you received another NJP for unspecified charges. On 22 September 1975 the commanding officer initiated separation action by reason of unfitness due to frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities, and recommended an undesirable discharge. You refused to sign the discharge notification or acknowledgement of rights. A memorandum indicated that you were interviewed on two occasions, refused military counsel, and stated that you would retain civil counsel. On 7 January 1976 the commanding general directed that an administrative discharge board (ADB) consider his recommendation for separation.
On 8 January 1976 an ADB convened. The recorder noted that you had no counsel present, but you agreed to proceed. The ADB found that you were unfit due to frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities, and recommended an undesirable discharge. On 28 January 1976 the separation authority approved the recommendation of the ADB for an undesirable discharge by reason of unfitness. On 6 February 1976 you were so separated. At that time you were assigned a reenlistment code of RE-4, which means that you were not eligible or recommended for reenlistment.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and level of education. The Board considered your contentions that your minor disciplinary infractions occurred after you returned from deployment, you were singled out and abused, and many of the charges were false. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge or changes in the reason for separation or reenlistment code. The Board found that your repetitive misconduct continued even after you were warned that further infractions could result in administrative separation. Regarding your contentions, the Board noted that your misconduct occurred while assigned to three different companies and continued for over 16 months. Further, there is no evidence in the record to contradict any of the eight NJP’s that you received, nor is there any evidence in the record of abuse. Therefore, the Board concluded that the discharge was proper as issued and no change is warranted.




2
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

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 00558-05

    Original file (00558-05.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 October 2005. 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. However, you subsequently waived your right to present your case to an ADB in exchange for a recommendation for a general discharge.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02231-00

    Original file (02231-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 September 2000. 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 and applicable statutes, regulations, thereof, your naval record, and policies. Given all the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 11117-07

    Original file (11117-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 November 2008. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 01172-07

    Original file (01172-07.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 Marine Corps on 23 May 1972 at age 18. On 19 September 1973 you were again...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 09154-04

    Original file (09154-04.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 Marine Corps on 13 July 1970 at age 17 and served for a year without disciplinary...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 09051-03

    Original file (09051-03.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 Boardfoundthe evidence submitted was insucifficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.Yours theenter the Navy at age 17. However, on 5 November 1975 you received another NJP for two UA’s...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080332C070215

    Original file (2002080332C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 26 January 1976, the applicant's commander advised the applicant of his rights and preferred charges against him for the AWOL offense. There is no evidence in the available records to show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 11838-08

    Original file (11838-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 October 2009. 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, your case was forwarded, and on 1 June 1976 the separation authority approved the recommendation for an undesirable discharge.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04042-11

    Original file (04042-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 11 January 1977 you received NUP for absence from your appointed place of duty and two specifications of failure to obey a lawful order. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge or a change of the narrative reason for separation because of the seriousness of your repeated and frequent misconduct which resulted in nine NUJPs, counselling on several occasions for involvement of a discreditable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01823-08

    Original file (01823-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 October 2008. 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 connection with this processing, you acknowledged that separation could result in a UD and elected to have your case heard by an administrative...