DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 SIN
Docket No: 07811-07
26 June 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 24 June 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 10 September 1998 at age 19.
On 25 March 1999, you were counseled about underage drinking and
warned that further misconduct could result in administrative
discharge action. On 2 August 1999, you received nonjudicial
punishment (NUP) for altering your military identification card.
You were awarded a forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty.
Based on the information currently in your record, a medical
entry states that on 18 July 2000, you referred yourself to an
alcohol treatment program after being charged with driving under
the influence (DUI) of alcohol by civil authorities. On 20 July
2000, you were evaluated as alcohol dependent and admitted to
outpatient treatment. However, you were returned to full duty as
a treatment failure because you drank while in treatment, and
were arrested and charged for another DUI on 23 August 2001.
On 15 January 2002, you were recommended for separation due to
-repeated counseling on your lack of discipline, failure to
perform to standards, and your second DUI charge. On 8 February
2002, you were once again counseled about your conduct and warned
that further misconduct could result in administrative separation
action. On 26 February 2002, you received a second NUP for a
brief period of unauthorized absence.
On 26 February 2002, you were notified of pending administrative
separation action by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of
misconduct. You waived your right to consult with counsel,
submit a statement or have your case heard by an administrative
discharge board (ADB). On 28 February 2002, your commanding
officer forwarded his recommendation that you be discharged under
other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct to the
separating authority. On 3 April 2002 you were so discharged.
At that time you were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, overall
record of service, and letter from the Veterans Administration.
Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not
sufficient to warrant changing the reason for your discharge
given your record of two NJP’s and convictions by civil
authorities for DUI, or a change to your reenlistment code which
was based on your disciplinary record and substandard behavior.
In this regard, an RE-4 reenlistment code is required when an
individual is separated due to misconduct. Further, the Board
noted that you were counseled and warned of the consequences of
further misconduct, and you waived the right to an ADB, your best
chance for retention or a better characterization of service.
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 PF
Executive e r
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00801-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 August 1999. Your record reflects that prior to your reenlistment you had four convictions for driving under the influence (DUI) and had completed in-patient (level 111) alcohol rehabilitation treatment in April 1986. The Board notes that the Navy is very reluctant to discharge an individual with more than 19 years of service.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00965-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 October 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. On 5 August 1987, the ADB unanimously recommended separation with an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00580-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 May 2002. The Board found that you reenlisted in the Navy on 23 February 1988 for three years. The Board could find no error or injustice in your assigned reenlistment code since you were treated no differently than others discharged under similar circumstances.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09978-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 February 2009. You were also counseled regarding this offense and warned that further infractions could result in disciplinary action or an other than honorable (OTH) discharge. On 8 January 1985, you had NJP for use of marijuana.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR7266 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 August 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. On 24 January 1989, you were counseled and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge ‘action.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR2510-13
A three- member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 March 2014. You were "80 discharged .On 29 October 1992. , Ce The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed all potentially’ mitigating factors, such as your record of service, post service accomplishments, character letters, and desire to upgrade your discharge. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Thu Sep 21 09_17_36 CDT 2000
Further, other individuals stated that you did not notify the command until the third duty day after the arrest. You contend that the arrest was reported on the first day back to work; you were directed not to have any contact with anyone on board the submarine, and therefore could not obtain any witnesses; the executive officer threatened further adverse action if you appealed the NJP; and you were told that you would receive additional alcohol rehabilitation prior to discharge. ...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10122-07
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. During the period 12 November 1982 to 18 February 1983, you had three NUP's. 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 | CY2010 | 10405-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 July 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. On 26 December 1984, you were notified of pending administrative discharge processing with an other than honorable (OTH) discharge due to misconduct...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 06880-12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 May 2013. 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. You were warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action.