Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11293-06
Original file (11293-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
                                                       8OARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
                                              2 NAVY ANNEX
                                                       WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
        
                                                                                          C RS
                                                       Docket No: 11293-06
                                                      6 March 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 fo r Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, cons i dered your application on 5 March 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. 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. In this connection the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion. 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


Enclosure






















DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3000 MARINE CORPS PENTAGON
                                    WASHINGTON, DC 20350-3000

                          


                           I N REPLY REFER TO:
                                                                                  1070
          FEB 02 2007

Memorandum FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:    APPLICATION FOR CORRECTION IN THE CASE OF GUNNERY
         Ref:    (a)      MCM, Part V
                  (b)      JAGINST 5800.7D
1 W e are asked to provide an opinion
(hereinafter “Applicant”) application t o request f or removal of his two nonjudicial punishments (NJP) he received on 17 May 2002 and 22 November 2002. Applicant also requests reimbursement of the fines assessed at his NJPs.
2.       O pinion . For the reasons noted below, we recommend that the Board deny Applicant’s requested relief.
3.       Background
a.       On 27 April 2002, while attached to Headquarters and Service Company (H&S Co), Headquarters Battalion (HQBN), Marine Corps Recruit Depot (MCRD), Applicant was arrested by civilian authorities for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.
b.       On 17 May 2002, Applicant accepted NJP for driving under the influence of alcohol, in violation of Article l 11 , Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Applicant received forfeitures of $1,363.00 pay per month for a period of one month; suspended for six months. Applicant did not appeal his NJP on 20 May
 2002.
c.       On 2 November 2002, Applicant was again arrested by civilian authorities for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.
d . On 22 November 2002, the Commanding Officer (CO), H&S Co, HQBN, MCRD, imposed NJP upon Applicant for driving under the influence of alcohol, in violation of Article 111, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) . Applicant received forfeitures of $1,404.00 pay per month for a period of two months. Applicant did not appeal his NJP.
4. Analysis

a.       As an initial observation, we note that no legal error occurred in the imposition of the NJPs. Further, Applicant has provided no credible evidence that his NJP was unjust or disproportionate. The Applicant voluntarily accepted NJP and was found guilty by his Commanding Officer. Based on the documentary evidence, Applicant was afforded his full procedural rights, including the opportunity to consult with an attorney. Applicant was informed of his right to refuse NJP and to demand trial by court-martial. These procedural rights are designed to ensure both fairness and finality in the context of an administrative process.
b.       Nonjudicial punishment is an administrative proceeding, not a criminal trial. Therefore, the formal rules of evidence do not apply. The standard of proof at NJP is “by preponderance of the evidence” rather than “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Applicant’s Commanding Officer had ample evidence to impose NJPs and was in the best position to determine the facts surrounding the case.
c.       Applicant claims that the imposition of his NJPs were improper because he was tried for the charges and found not guilty in civilian court. This argument is without merit. According to Part V, par l.f.(5), of reference (a), “Nonjudicial punishment may not be imposed for an offense tried by a State or foreign court unless authorized by regulations of the Secretary concerned.” The regulations of the Secretary concerned are found in paragraph 0124 of reference (b), and are triggered only after a person has been tried in state court. There is no prohibition on a commander imposing NJP prior to the matter being tried in state court. Imposing NJP prior to a civilian court action is a viable and lawful option within the discretion of a commander. Accordingly, no error occurred.
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.


Asst Head, Military Law Branch
Judge Advocate Division
By direction of the
Commandant of the Marine Corps

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10025-06

    Original file (10025-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated 15 December 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 removal of his FitRep and all references to his NJP from his OMPF should be denied.3. The standard of proof at NJP is “by...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02965-08

    Original file (02965-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory Opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated 24 April 2008, 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. Applicant now requests that his NUP be removed from his record stating that his driving while impaired charge was dismissed by the civilian courts.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Thu Sep 21 09_17_36 CDT 2000

    Original file (Document scanned on Thu Sep 21 09_17_36 CDT 2000.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Further, other individuals stated that you did not notify the command until the third duty day after the arrest. You contend that the arrest was reported on the first day back to work; you were directed not to have any contact with anyone on board the submarine, and therefore could not obtain any witnesses; the executive officer threatened further adverse action if you appealed the NJP; and you were told that you would receive additional alcohol rehabilitation prior to discharge. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06062-07

    Original file (06062-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated 14 August 2007, a copy of which is attached. You requested an advisory opinion on the revocation of Staff Sergeant Valdez’s (hereinafter “Applicant”) appointment to the grade of Gunnery Sergeant and the removal of a charge he received at Battalion level Non-Judicial Punishment (NUP) . On 3 May 2007, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, informed the Applicant that he was revoking his promotion...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 04110-08

    Original file (04110-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 July 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 probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 04427-05

    Original file (04427-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 9 April 2002 the Commanding Officer (CO) of the 4 th Marine Corps District concurred with the results of both investigations and stated as follows in two separate endorsement letters:The CO Recruiting Station Raleigh is directed to conduct NJP proceedings on (Petitioner) Upon completion of NJP, process aforementioned Marines for Relief for Cause due to Malpractice.Both letters were addressed to “files”, with a copy to the CO, Marine Corps Recruiting Station, Raleigh, North Carolina.f. An...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03200-01

    Original file (03200-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    factors are present in this case. Department to cite Petitioner with breach of peace does not limit the Marine Corps' Additionally, both offenses alleged. Jurisdiction under Article 2 is not e. Petitioner's claim that his NJP was unjust because he had already paid a fine for the civilian offense is without merit.

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0902169

    Original file (MD0902169.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. He was twice arrested for underage possession of alcohol (received an enlistment waiver) and continued heavy regular use of alcohol following enlistment. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s date of...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501119

    Original file (MD0501119.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). 020801: Commanding Officer, Headquarters and Support Battalion, Marine Corps Base, recommended to the Commanding General, Marine Corps Base, that the Applicant be discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a commission of a serious offense. Not appealed.020813: Commander, Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06864-06

    Original file (06864-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    requested we provide an advisory opinion on (hereinafter “Applicant”) application to request the punishment he received at his nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 7 May 2006 be removed from his OMPF.2. Applicant now requests that his NJP be removed because he feels that he did not receive adequate legal representation prior to his NJP.Subj: APPLICATION FOR CORRECTION THE CASE OF CORPORAL4. While Applicant did appeal his NJP, Applicant’s concerns were reviewed by the Commanding Officer,...