Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03567-07
Original file (03567-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100




 S MW
          Docket No:3567-07
 5 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 for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered 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.
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 20 January 1975, you enlisted in the Marine Corps at age 20. On 21 September 1975, you had nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for disrespect. On 12 November 1975, you were informed that you were being recommended for the expeditious discharge program. On 27 January 1976, your commanding officer initiated administrative separation processing under the Marine Corps’ expeditious discharge program, and recommended a general discharge. Your commanding officer further stated that he was making such a recommendation because of your lack of motivation, childish refusal to take orders from noncommissioned officers younger than you, shirking your duties, and repeated attempts to get discharged. In connection with this processing, you acknowledged the discharge recommendation and did not object. On
3 February 1976, you had NJP for misbehavior of a sentinel.



On 5 March 1976, the separation authority approved the separation
recommendation and directed a general discharge by reason of
convenience of the government under the expeditious discharge program.
On 18 March 1976, you were so discharged.
The Board found that you were fortunate that your commanding officer
chose to recommend you for separation under the
 expeditious discharge program, since your intentional violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice could have resulted in additional disciplinary actions and an other than honorable discharge. Therefore, the Board found that you were fortunate to have received a general discharge. Additionally, characterization of service is based, in part, on conduct and proficiency averages computed from marks assigned on a periodic basis. Your conduct and proficiency averages were 4.0 and 3.6, respectively. An average mark of 4.0 in conduct was required at the time of your separation for a fully honorable characterization of service.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potential mitigation, such as your youth and contention that you never got into any trouble. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors and contention were not sufficient to warrant recharacteriZation of your service due to the seriousness of your misconduct and failure to attain the conduct average required for a fully honorable characterization of service. 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 PFEIFFER
 Executive Director



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10235-07

    Original file (10235-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 June 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 5 March 1976, your commanding officer initiated administrative separation processing under the Marine Corps ' expeditious discharge program, and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2804 14

    Original file (NR2804 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three- -member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 February 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01123-09

    Original file (01123-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your | application on 1 December 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03209-01

    Original file (03209-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    you were told that after six months, your discharge would be The Board concluded that the foregoing factors and upgraded. contention were insufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your record of three of service, and the fact that you failed to achieve the required average in conduct. 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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00775-02

    Original file (00775-02.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 July 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Your conduct average was 3.6. 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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07629-06

    Original file (07629-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 December 2007. The Board concluded that those factors were insufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your extensive disciplinary record and the fact that your conduct average was too low to warrant an honorable discharge. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06373-08

    Original file (06373-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 May 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 | CY2014 | NR1815 14

    Original file (NR1815 14.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 March 2015. 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 | CY2001 | 05573-01

    Original file (05573-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 August 2001. 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. Your record...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06912-08

    Original file (06912-08.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. On 22 December 1976, you received a general discharge based on your average conduct marks. 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.