Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02930-07
Original file (02930-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

TIR
Docket No: 2930-07

11 February 2008

 

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 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 the evidence submitted was insufficient

to establish the existence of probable. material error or
injustice.

You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 24 January 1975 at age 18.
You served for a year and two months without disciplinary
incident, but during the period from 8 March to 12 December 1976
you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on five occasions for
three periods of absence from your appointed place of duty,
disobedience, and three periods of failure to go to your

appointed place of duty.

On 21 January 1977 you received NUP for a seven day period of
unauthorized absence (UA) and absence from your appointed place
of duty. The punishment imposed was a reduction to paygrade EF-1.
On 14 April 1977 you were in a UA status for one day. However,

no disciplinary action was taken for this misconduct. About a
1977, you were notified of pending

elected to present your
(ADB), and to make a statement regarding your discharge. On 26
May 1977 you received your seventh NUP for absence from your
appointed place of duty and were awarded a $360 forfeiture of
pay, restriction for 25 days, and extra duty for 20 days.

On 28 July 1977, an ADB recommended separation under other than
honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to frequent
involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities.
Subsequently, your commanding officer also recommended an other
than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to frequent
involvement of a discreditable nature with military and civilian
authorities as evidenced by counselling for substandard
performance, tardiness, personal appearance, nonrecommendation
for promotion, frequent disciplinary involvement, failure to
report, and seven NUPs. The discharge authority approved these
recommendations and directed an other than honorable discharge,
and on 19 September 1977 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 desire to upgrade your discharge. 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 seven NUPs.
Accordingly, your application has been denied.

The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished
upon request.

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,

\o Non
W. DEAN PFAYF
Executive Dike r

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04699-10

    Original file (04699-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 February 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. The record does not reflect the disciplinary action taken, if any, for this 76 day period of UA.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04042-11

    Original file (04042-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 11 January 1977 you received NUP for absence from your appointed place of duty and two specifications of failure to obey a lawful order. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge or a change of the narrative reason for separation because of the seriousness of your repeated and frequent misconduct which resulted in nine NUJPs, counselling on several occasions for involvement of a discreditable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00939-11

    Original file (00939-11.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 October 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. However, the record does not reflect the disciplinary action taken by civil authorities for this misconduct.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07523-08

    Original file (07523-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 June 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 | CY2010 | 11286-10

    Original file (11286-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with ali material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. After waiving your procedural rights to consult with legal counsel and to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB), your commanding officer recommended separation under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement of a discreditable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 07289-09

    Original file (07289-09.pdf) 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07289-09

    Original file (07289-09.pdf) 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07560-08

    Original file (07560-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 June 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 | CY2010 | 11679-10

    Original file (11679-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 August 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. 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 | CY2008 | 06162-08

    Original file (06162-08.pdf) 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. During the period 4 April to 10 August 1978, you were in a UA status, a period of about 128 days. On 15 August 1979, the separation authority approved the recommendation and directed an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct due to frequent discreditable involvement.