DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
SMW
Docket No: 415-07
19 July 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 18 July 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.
On 17 July 1985 you enlisted in the Marine Corps at age 19. On
6 June 1986, while an avionics student, you were counseled
regarding your substandard performance of duty and lack of
attention to detail, and warned that further substandard
performance would result in disciplinary action. On
21 August 1986 you were dropped from the avionics school for
academic deficiencies. On 3 September 1986 you were counseled
regarding deficiencies in your performance and conduct, and given
an official letter of reprimand.
On 1 October 1986 you reported for duty as a student at an
aviation supply school. On 5 November 1986 you received
nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for a brief period of unauthorized
absence (UA). On 18 December 1986 you completed the school and
subsequently reported for duty to a unit in the United States.
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 corrective action could result in
disciplinary action or administrative separation. On
1 November 1987 you were counseled and warned regarding your
continued tardiness from formations and work. On 25 January 1988
you were counseled regarding your financial irresponsibility,
specifically, writing bad checks and failure to pay debts.
On 1 March 1988 you were transferred overseas and subsequently
reported for duty to a unit in Okinawa, Japan. The record shows
that your officer in charge counseled you informally on many
occasions. During January 1989 you were made aware of permanent
change of station orders directing your transfer back to the
United States. You were subsequently made aware of your
departure flight, but on 28 February 1989 you failed to report
for that flight. On 1 March 1989 you stated that the flight date
was 7 March 1989, but there was no flight scheduled on that date.
You were subsequently charged with UA, missing movement, and
making a false official statement.
On 21 March 1989 your commanding officer (CO) initiated
administrative separation by reason of misconduct due to minor
disciplinary infractions. In connection with this processing,
you acknowledged that separation could result in an other than
honorable discharge and elected to have your case heard by an
administrative discharge board (ADB). On 21 April 1989 an ADB
found that you had committed misconduct due to minor disciplinary
infractions and recommended an other than honorable discharge.
On 24 May 1989 the staff judge advocate found your case
sufficient in law and fact, and recommended an other than
honorable discharge. Apparently, the separation authority
approved the discharge recommendation and directedan other than
honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to minor
disciplinary infractions. On 16 June 1989 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 overall service record. In this regard, the Board
noted that you were promoted, were never convicted by a court-
martial, and were awarded the Good Conduct Medal (GCM) and
Overseas Service Ribbon (OSR). Nevertheless, the Board concluded
that these factors were not sufficient to warrant
recharacterization of your discharge due to the seriousness of
your repetitive misconduct that continued even after you were
repeatedly warned that further infractions could result in an
administrative discharge. The record also shows that you were
not promoted after you were reduced in grade to an E-3 at the NUP
of 5 November 1986. reduced your pay grade to an E-3. Regarding
the GCM, the record shows that you were issued a GCM on
16 July 1988, but you barely met the minimum requirements
established by regulations for this award, and you were issued an
OSR on 28 February 1989, when you completed your overseas tour.
However, issuance of such awards does not excuse your misconduct.
Therefore, 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 PFE
Executive Directar
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01737-80
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 October 2008. In connection with this processing, you acknowledged that separation could result in an OTH discharge and waived the right to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB). Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge due to your misconduct that continued...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00279-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 September 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06798-06
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 an conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Boar found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.On 2 June 1986 y u enlisted in the Navy at age 18. On 12 January 1989 you received NJP for three...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 04706-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 February 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. On 20 July 1990, you were so discharged.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10247-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 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. On 1i.September 1989, you were so discharged.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07221-07
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 4 May 1988, you enlisted in the Navy at age 23.On 23 August 1988, you had nonjudicial punishment...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06875-07
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 February 1986, you reenlisted in the Navy at age 27 after two prior periods of honorable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06075-07
In connection with this processing you acknowledged that separation could result in an other than honorable (0TH) discharge and waived the right to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB). Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge due to the seriousness of your misconduct, especially, the 215 day period of UA. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07387-10
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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR6689 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 July 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...