Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06068-07
Original file (06068-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100



 SMW
Docket No:6068-07
5 March 2008
From:    Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To:      Secretary of the Navy
Subj REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD

Ref:     (a) 10 U.S.C. 1552
End:     (1) Case Summary
                   (2) Subject’s naval record
1.       Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Marine Corps, applied to this Board requesting an honorable discharge vice the general discharge that he received on 16 June 1981.
2.       The Board, consisting of Mr. M r. and Mr. ~ reviewed Petitioner’s all egations of error and injustice on 5 March 2008, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the limited corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
3.       The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice finds as follows:
a.       Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies available under existing law and regulations within the Department of the Navy.
b.       Although the Petitioner’s application was not filed in a timely manner, it is in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations and review the application on its merits.
c.       On 11 May 1981, Petitioner enlisted in the Marine Corps at age 17. On 19 May 1981, he disclosed pre-serv i ce drug use beyond the use of marijuana and a police record. On 2 June 1981, the separation authority disapproved his retention in the Marine Corps.
d.       On 5 June 1981, Petitioner had two nonjudjcjal punishments (NJP’s) for two instances of willful disobedience of a lawful order. On 9 June 1981, his commanding officer initiated administrative separation by reason of misconduct due to frequent discreditable involvement. In connection with this processing, he acknowledged that separation could result in a general discharge. On 16 June 1981, the separation authority approved the separation recommendation and directed a general discharge by reason of misconduct due to frequent discreditable involvement. On 16 June 1981, he was so discharged. Petitioner was not assigned conduct marks.

e.       In his application, Petitioner requests an upgrade of his general discharge.
f.       Regulations in effect at that time authorized administrative separation of individuals by reason of misconduct due to frequent discreditable involvement if the individual was counseled and given an opportunity to correct his deficiencies. Regulations in effect at that time also authorized administrative separation of individuals by reason of convenience of the government due to an erroneous enlistment if they were found to have a disqualifying factor after enlistment. Characterization of service was determined by overall service record. A general discharge was issued to members whose overall service record was not considered sufficiently meritorious for an honorable discharge because of average conduct marks below 4.0.
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants partial relief. In this regard, Petitioner’s separation was not processed in accordance with regulations. The record shows that administrative separation by reason of misconduct due to frequent discreditable involvement was initiated after Petitioner had two NJP’s on the same day. He was never counseled or given an opportunity to correct his deficiencies. However, the Board finds that Petitioner was not granted an enlistment waiver for disqualifying factors discovered after enlistment. Therefore, Petitioner should have been administratively separated by reason of convenience of the government due to an erroneous enlistment. Although there are no conduct marks currently contained in the record, the Board finds the general characterization of service was appropriate, given his two NJP’s. Accordingly, the record should be partially corrected to show that he was separated with a general discharge by reason of convenience of the government due to an erroneous enlistment.






RECQNMENDATION

a.       That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that he was separated with a general discharge by reason of convenience of the government due to an erroneous enlistment on 16 June 1981, vice by reason of misconduct due to frequent discreditable involvement.
b.       That no further relief be granted
c.       That this Report of Proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s naval record so that all future reviewers will understand the reason for the change in his record.
4. It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board’s review and deliberations and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board’s proceedings in the above entitled matter.

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN        BRIAN J. GEORGE
Recorder         Acting Recorder

5. Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section
6(e) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulation, Section 72 3.6(e)) and having assured compliance with its provisions, it is hereby announced that the foregoing corrective action, taken under the authority of reference (a), has been approved by the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.



                                            
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
 Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070000705

    Original file (20070000705.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-5-1, in effect at that time, prescribed the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives), the reasons for the separation of members from active military service, and the separation program designators to be used for these stated reasons. The regulation shows that the separation program...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 06600-00

    Original file (06600-00.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected to show a more favorable type of discharge than the general discharge issued on 31 August. In this regard, the majority notes that his conduct mark average was sufficient for an honorable discharge, despite his four disciplinary actions. MINORITY CONCLUSION: Mr. Beckett disagrees with the majority and...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140001365

    Original file (20140001365.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    A DD Form 214 showing he was discharged in pay grade E-1 on 6 July 1981, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-33b(2), for frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. However, the separation authority could direct a general discharge if such was merited by the member's overall record. He also provided no evidence or a convincing argument to show his discharge should be upgraded and his military records contain no...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07623-07

    Original file (07623-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 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 | CY2002 | 10299-02

    Original file (10299-02.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 September 2003. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. On 12 September 1981 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for communicating a threat and were awarded a $135 forfeiture of pay and correctional custody for seven days, which was suspended for six months. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07729-01

    Original file (07729-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD S 2 NAVY ANNE X WASHINGTON DC 20370.510 0 TJR Docket No: 7729-01 13 May 2002 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. sitting in executive session, considered your A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, application on 7 May 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1997_Navy | ND97-01328

    Original file (ND97-01328.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND97-01328 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 970828, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The member will be advised that if he or she elects an administrative discharge board, nonjudicial punishments, courts-martial convictions and/or involvement(s) of a discreditable nature with civil authorities (when member is processed for this reason) occurring up to the announcement of the board’s findings and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 06214-99

    Original file (06214-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    6214-99 18 February 2000 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF gail Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C.1552 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments (2) Case Summary (3) Subject's Naval Record 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the United States Navy applied to this Board requesting, in effect, that her naval record be corrected to show a more favorable type of discharge than the...

  • 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 | CY2002 | 10960-02

    Original file (10960-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 October 2003. On 17 August 1981 you received a fourth NJP for two periods of UA totalling four days and were awarded restriction and extra duty for 14 days and a $80 forfeiture of pay. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is existence of probable on the applicant to demonstrate the material error or injustice.