Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05825-07
Original file (05825-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100



 TJR
 Docket No: 5825-07
 15 January 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 15 January 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 the Headquarters, Marine Corps, Performance Evaluation Review Branch dated 26 June 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 regard, 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.

Finally, the Board noted that you are entitled to submit the attached Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States (DD Form 293) to the Naval Council of Personnel Boards, attention: Naval Discharge Review Board, 720 Kennon Street, S. E., Room 309, Washington Navy Yard, Washington, DC 20374-5023 for consideration of an upgrade of your discharge and a change in your narrative reason for discharge.




Sincerely,




W. DEAN PFIEFFER
          Executive Director

Enclosures




























DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
 QUANTICO, VA 22134~51O3



                  M MER /RE
                                              JUN 17 2007


 MEMO RANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:    BCNR APPLICATION ~N~~THE CASE OF FORMER LANCE CORPORAL
 SUBJ:    RECODE
Enc1 ( 1 ) NA VM C
         (2)      NAVMC 118 (ILl)b
         (3)      NAVMC ll 8 (12)a
         4)       NAVMC 118(12)b
DD Form 149 of 24 May 07
l        service record has been reviewed and it has been det ermined that at the time of separation he was assigned a reenlistment code of RE-4, which means that he was not recommended for reenlistment The reenlistment code was correctly assigned and was based on his overall record.
2. ___ ___ was discharged under Other Than Honorable Conditions on May 3, 2002 in lieu of trial by Court - Martial A review of the administrative portion of his service record indicates that he was counseled concerning the following deficiencies: lack of good judgement; lying to the Company Gunnery Sergeant; not being recommended for promotion; and financial irresponsibility The disciplinary portion of the record shows that he received one nonjudicial punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for failure to obey an order, it is also noted that was declared a deserter on October 19, 2001 and remained so until his surrender on March 25, 2002. Enclosures (1) through (4) pertain.
3. After a review of all relevant information, this Headquarters concurs in the professional evaluation official qualifications for reenlistment at the time of separation. Once a code is correctly assigned it is not routinely changed or upgraded as a result of events that occur after separation or based merely on the passage of time. -

4. Enclosure (5) is returned for final action.
        




,        Head, Performance Evaluation
 Review Branch
Personnel Management Division
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01705-07

    Original file (01705-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5 100TJRDocket No: 1705-07 5 September 2007This 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 September 2007. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09032-07

    Original file (09032-07.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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Headquarters, Marine Corps, Performance Evaluation Review Branch dated 20 March 2007, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08892-07

    Original file (08892-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    08892-07 14 December 2007This 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 12 December 2007. Documentary evidence Considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 00587-07

    Original file (00587-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYBOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEXWASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 CRSDocket No: 587-0720 March 2007This 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 28 February 2007. The Board also considered the advisory opinion from Headquarters...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08064-06

    Original file (08064-06.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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps, dated 31 August 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 00630-06

    Original file (00630-06.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. In addition, the Board considered an advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps, a copy of which is enclosed.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04541-07

    Original file (04541-07.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. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08862-06

    Original file (08862-06.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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Branch, 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02448-06

    Original file (02448-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 May 2006. 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. A minimum average conduct mark of 4.0 was required for a fully honorable characterization of service at the time of separation.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05447-07

    Original file (05447-07.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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory Opinion furnished by Headquarters United States Marine Corps, 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...