Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07899-06
Original file (07899-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
                                    2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

                                                      TRG
         Docket No: 7899-06
        12 February 2008




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 February 2008. 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 was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.
You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 18 January 1984 at age 19. During the period from 3 June 1985 to 22 May 1986, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on three occasions. Your offenses were an unauthorized absence of about 10 hours, eight instances of writing bad checks and making a false official statement. Additionally you were counseled on two occasions Concerning the writing of bad checks and failure to safeguard and secure government equipment.
Based on the foregoing record, you were processed for an administrative discharge by reason of a pattern of misconduct. Subsequently an administrative discharge board (ADB) found that you had committed misconduct but recommended a suspended discharge. On 1 December 1986, the discharge authority directed your retention in the Marine Corps. On 18 December 1987 you received your fourth NJP for disobedience and writing another bad check.
On 7 January 1987 you were again notified of processing for an administrative discharge. Subsequently, your commanding officer recommended that you be discharged under other than honorable conditions. An ADB convened on 25 February 1987 and found that you had committed misconduct and recommended by a two to one vote
 that you be discharged under other than honorable conditions. Subsequently the separation authority directed discharge under other than honorable conditions and you were 50 discharged on 13 April 1987.
In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all Potentially mitigating factors, such as your initial period of good service and your contention that you were told that the discharge would be automatically upgraded after a period of six months. The Board found that these factors and contention were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your repeated misconduct and especially your misconduct after you were placed on notice that further misconduct could lead to discharge under other than honorable conditions. Further, there is no provision in the law which would allow for recharacterization of a discharge based solely on the passage of a period of time. The Board concluded that the discharge was proper as issued and no change is warranted.
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 | CY2007 | 00415-07

    Original file (00415-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel’ of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 July 2007. 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 20 April 1987 you were counseled regarding your continued failure to be at your appointed place of duty on time, and warned that failure to take...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07431-06

    Original file (07431-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your applicant, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.After careful nd conscientious consideration of the entire record, the B rd found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish t e existence of probable material error or injustice.You reenlisted in the Navy on 19 June 1981 after three years of honorable ser ce. On 21 March 1985 you...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04606-10

    Original file (04606-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your , application on 20 January 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. On 22 July 1986, the ADB found that you committed misconduct and recommended that you be separated with a general discharge.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR6723 13

    Original file (NR6723 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 5 August 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. You were warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10943-09

    Original file (10943-09.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 July 2010. 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 | CY2001 | 05398-01

    Original file (05398-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Dear 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. considered your application on Your allegations of error and injustice were A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, 3 October 2001. reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. You were so discharged on 28 May...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08211-07

    Original file (08211-07.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.On 26 October 1985, you enlisted in the Naval Reserve at age 17 with parental consent. On 29 October...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06881-01

    Original file (06881-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 April 2002. The recommendations of the medical board were to attempt to control the cluster headaches through medication and a six month period of limited duty. Additionally the Board considered the statements of your commanding officer concerning his investigation, your personal letter written concerning your positive urinalysis test and the fact that you were...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 01308 12

    Original file (01308 12.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 December 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. The Board found that on 27 December 1985, you were briefed on the Navy’s policy on drug and alcohol abuse.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11672-09

    Original file (11672-09.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 August 2010. 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...