Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 07844-05
Original file (07844-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC
Docket No: 7844-05
12 January 2007



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 5 January 2007. 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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps, dated 14 December 2005 and 17 January 2006, copies of which are attached, and your rebuttal.
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. In this connection the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinions. 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,


 ROBERT D Z SALMAN
 Acting Executive Director
Enclosures











DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3000 MARINE CORPS PENTAGON
                           WASHINGTON, DC 20350-3000
                                              IN REPLY REFER TO:
                                                                                                   1070
                                                                                                   JAM8
                                                                                                   4DEC 2 00 5
MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:    BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS (BCNR) APPLICATION


Ref:     (a) NI4ER/PERB ltzr of 20 Sep 05
End:     (1) ROT dtd 4 Oct 03
1.       You requested an advisory opinion onjfIUIIIIhUIIUIhIIIIIj, (hereinafter “Applicant”) request for the removal of his fitness report, the reinstatement of his rank, and receipt of his recruiting ribbon.
2.       We recommend that Applicant’s request for relief be denied. Our analysis follows.
3.       Background

a.       In October 2003, while attached to the Marine Corps Recruiting Station, Phoenix, Arizona, Applicant, a Gunnery Sergeant, pay grade E-7, was arrested by civilian authorities in Tucson, Arizona for Assault and Disorderly Conduct. After a civil hearing, all of the charges against Applicant were dismissed.
b.       During April 2004, the Commanding Officer, 8th Marine Corps District, convened a Special Court-Martial at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego, California. Applicant was charged with violation of Article 116, Breach of the Peace, and Article 128, Assault, of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Applicant pleaded not guilty to both charges but was found guilty by a court-martial composed of officer and enlisted members. As punishment, Applicant was reduced to the rank of sergeant, pay grade E-5, and received forfeitures of $779.00 pay per month for a period of 3 months. Additionally, the members recommended that forfeitures be suspended for 6 months.




Subj:    BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS (BCNR) APPLICATION

4.       Analysis

a.       Applicant’s claim that his Court-Martial was unjust is without merit. We note as an initial point that the facts surrounding the charges against Applicant were fully litigated at a contested court-martial. Therefore, Applicant’s attempt to re-characterize his innocence is inappropriate.
b.       Applicant claims that his Commanding Officer was out to get him for his own personal reasons. This allegation is merely circumstantial. Under the UCMJ, Applicant’s commander had the discretion to determine what, if any, disciplinary or administrative action was appropriate. In determining the appropriate resolution, a commander must consider and balance many factors, including the nature of the offenses, the character and military service of the accused, military exigencies, and the interests of justice.. Ultimately, the commander must ensure a just result in the context of maintaining discipline and morale within the particular command involved.
c.       Applicant claims that his court-martial was unjust because he was denied access to his accuser is contrary to the findings of the case. As in any criminal trial, the accused at a Special Court-Martial (SPCM) is presumed innocent, and the government has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The rules of evidence that apply during a SPCM are similar to those applied in the U.S. District Courts. The accused has the right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him, to present relevant evidence in his own defense, and to testify or remain silent. If convicted, he may present evidence in extenuation and mitigation before any sentence is adjudged. The court-martial was conducted following the requirements of the UCMJ and Manual for Courts-Martial (2002 Ed.), and under the control of a military judge. Based on the results of trial (Enclosure (1)) the evidence available to the trier-of-fact was sufficient in law to support a conviction.
d.       A court-martial considers many factors before determining an accused’s guilt or innocence including: the facts presented by both parties, the credibility of the evidence presented, and the instructions on the law provided by the military judge. When a court-martial adjudges sentence, these

2
















Subj:    BOA RD FOR CORRECTION IN THE CASE OF

factors include sentence limitations imposed by military law; government evidence concerning the nature and circumstances of the offenses; and defense evidence offered in rebuttal to government evidence or in extenuation or mitigation.

 e.       Any claims of error in the conduct or processing of Applicant’s court-martial should be directed to the appropriate avenue of redress. Specifically, if Applicant believes either his Constitutional or procedural rights were violated in the processing of his court-martial, his proper redress is as provided under the Manual for Courts-Martial. Since Applicant did not receive a sentence that would trigger an automatic appeal to the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, he has the absolute right to request an Article 69, UCMJ, review by the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Navy. If the JAG determines that any part of the findings or sentence to be unsupported in law or if a reassessment of the sentence is appropriate, the JAG may modify or set aside the findings or sentence or both. Therefore, at this time Applicant’s claims of improper referral to court-martial, improper consideration of evidence, lack of witness availability, and proper consideration of adverse matters during clemency are appropriate for review under Article 69, UCMJ, and not the Board.
f.       Applicant’s claim that his meritorious performance before or after the assault should render the court-martial findings, sentence, or other adverse action, unjust is baseless. Past performance were factors considered by both the convening authority and the court-martial members. Further, Applicant’s post court-martial performance is one of many factors for the convening authority to consider prior to making a discretionary decision to grant or deny clemency.
g.       Finally, Applicant’s appeal for equitable relief without demonstrated error or injustice in an otherwise proper court-martial is not cognizable by the Board. We note that clemency is a matter exclusively reserved to the convening authority, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, the Secretary of the Navy and the President. Consequently, Petitioner’s plea for clemency to the Board of Corrections for Naval Records should be ignored, as it is a matter reserved to other agencies.
h.       Per reference (a) the fitness report in question has not been processed, therefore it is not part of his military record and cannot be removed from his file or subject of an advisory opinion.
5.       Conclusion . Accordingly, we recommend that Applicant’s request for relief be denied.

 6.       Please contact the Military Law Branch at (703) 614-4250, if you require additional information.
U.S.
Colwell
Marine Corps
 Head, Military Law Branch
 Judge Advocate Division

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103  
IN REPLY REFER TO:
                  1650
                  M1414A - 3
         17 Jan 06
MEMORANDUM FOR   THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:    REQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINION IN THE CASE OF

Ref:     (a) SECNAVINST 1650.1G
1. A     review of the record available failed to reveal Lhat4j1,5 entitled to a Marine Corps Recruiting Ribbon. Personnel who are transferred due to relief for cause or relief for the good of the Service from recruiting duty are not eligible for the ribbon as indicated in SecNavinst 1650.1G.
2.       Point of contact at


Lieutenant Colonel, US
Acting Head, Military Awards Branch

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 08989-05

    Original file (08989-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by HQMC memorandum 1070 JAM7 of 20 December 2005, and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), letter of 5 April 2006, copies of which are attached.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. You requested an advisory opinion on Private(hereinafter “Applicant”)...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08327-01

    Original file (08327-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Petitioner's SCM record. SCMs;' therefore, the convening 25, UCMJ, criteria apply to authority essentially must "know" the officer who will serve as SCM. Petitioner accepted SCM and made no (l), Summary Court-Martial Officer's Petitioner had two opportunities to object and Petitioner cannot now claim that his SCM was However, he accepted SCM as part of the PTA knowing the convening authority could refer his Additionally, Petitioner t o did not oblect to if he had d. Witness' desire...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08979-06

    Original file (08979-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated 11 June 2006, a copy of which is attached.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. Applicant’s request for relief should be denied as his administrative separation was conducted in accordance with applicable regulations. Applicant first...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10534-06

    Original file (10534-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    We recommend that Applicant’s request for relief be denied. The charges were Article 86, Unauthorized Absence, Article 92, Dereliction in the Performance of Duties, and Article 133, Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a Gentleman, ofSubj: BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS (BCNR) APPLICATION IN THE CASE OFthe Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Finally, Applicant claims that the Board’s findings were not supported by the evidence.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00415-98

    Original file (00415-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your allegations of error and A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 April 1999. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. the Board carefully considered set aside your discharge, The Board also particularly noted counsel's contentions to the effect that no regulations provided for the discharge of an The and you...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11293-06

    Original file (11293-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated 2 February 2007, a copy of which is attached.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. 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 | CY2007 | 09279-07

    Original file (09279-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 November 2008. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated 26 November 2007, a copy of which is attached. 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.

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500271

    Original file (MD0500271.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD05-00271 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20041129. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 Letter from Applicant (3 pgs), undtd Statement in Support of Claim from Applicant (2 pgs), undtd Letter from Applicant dtd February 25, 2005 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive:...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00002-08

    Original file (00002-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. In accordance with the reference, an application for correction of a record must be filed within three years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice unless the Board excuses the untimely filing in the interest of justice. No corrective action is warranted in this case because Applicant fails to demonstrate...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600950

    Original file (MD0600950.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 20050826 with a bad conduct discharge which was the sentence adjudged by a properly convened special court-martial. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board...