Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02371-06
Original file (02371-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
                                             DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
 BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100



 TJR
 Docket No: 2371-06
16 March 2007




This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, 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 13 March 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.
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 3 April 1979 at age 18. You served for a year and six months without disciplinary incident, but on 24 October 1980, you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of absence from your appointed place of duty, disrespect, and disobedience. You were sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 30 days, reduction to paygrade E-1, and a $300 forfeiture of pay.
During the period from 20 May to 19 November 1981 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on two occasions for a two day period of unauthorized absence (UA), failure to go to your appointed place of duty, and destroying government property valued at $80. Also during this period you were placed on medical hold following reconstructive surgery on your left knee. Subsequently, you were placed on limited duty while undergoing treatment for anteromedial rotatory instability of the left knee.

On 28 January 1982 you received NJP for assault and resisting arrest and were awarded a $550 forfeiture of pay. About a month later, treatment for your knee problem was completed and you were directed to return to full duty on 3 March 1982. On 12 March 1982 you received your fourth NJP for failure to go to your appointed place of duty.
Subsequently, you were processed for an administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities. The discharge authority directed separation under other than honorable conditions, and on 28 May 1982 you were so discharged.
                          

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and assertion that you were told that your discharge would be upgraded six months after your separation. It also considered your assertion that your discharge was in error because you were on medical hold and tested positive for cocaine. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of the seriousness of your repetitive misconduct which resulted in four NJPs and a court-martial conviction. Further, the Board noted that the record contains documented evidence which is contrary to your assertion that you were on medical hold at the time of your discharge. Finally, no discharge is upgraded due solely to the passage of time. 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





2

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Wed Feb 14 13_34_15 CST 2001

    Original file (Document scanned on Wed Feb 14 13_34_15 CST 2001.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL. He noted that He The Board specifically noted In its review of your application the Board conducted a thorough review of both service and medical records, and the post-service medical records you provided. The Board also could not ignore the multiple notations With regard to your psychiatrist’s opinion that you suffered from PTSD, a paranoid personality disorder and a possible organic brain syndrome, the Board noted that like the other...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Wed Feb 14 14_01_05 CST 2001

    Original file (Document scanned on Wed Feb 14 14_01_05 CST 2001.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL. He noted that He The Board specifically noted In its review of your application the Board conducted a thorough review of both service and medical records, and the post-service medical records you provided. The Board also could not ignore the multiple notations With regard to your psychiatrist’s opinion that you suffered from PTSD, a paranoid personality disorder and a possible organic brain syndrome, the Board noted that like the other...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05252-08

    Original file (05252-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 April 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. 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 | 08138-07

    Original file (08138-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11044-06

    Original file (11044-06.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 18 Nay 1960 at age 18. You were sentenced to confinement at hard...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01650-07

    Original file (01650-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your late brother’s 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 brother enlisted in the Marine Corps on 10 February 1975 at age 17 and served for...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02665-06

    Original file (02665-06.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 Navy on 19 October 1982 at age 19, You served without disciplinary incident until...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 07537-03

    Original file (07537-03.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The punishment imposed was restriction and extra duty for 45 days, which was suspended for six months, and reduction to paygrade E-2. Subsequently, the discharge authority directed discharge under other than honorable conditions, and on 21 June 1983 you were so discharged.The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your prior honorable service in the National Guard, period of good service in the Marine Corps,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07529-07

    Original file (07529-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 May 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. About four months later, on 2 November 1984, you were convicted by SPCM of a 48 day period of UA and sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 63...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04748-01

    Original file (04748-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 December 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. the Board concluded these factors and contention were not sufficient to warrant a change in the characterization of your service because of your repetitive misconduct which resulted in Further, the Board six noted that...