DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
CRS
Docket No: 8238-07
28 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 9 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.
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.
The Board found that you enlisted in the Marine Corps on 24 March
1993. A general court-martial convened on 17 March 1995 and
found you guilty of use of amphetamine/methamphetamine on
numerous occasions between 1 January to 5 August 1994 and
distribution of methamphetamine. The court sentenced you to
confinement for ten years, forfeiture of all pay and allowances,
reduction in rank, and a dishonorable discharge. On 18 September
1995 the convening authority approved the sentence, suspended all
confinement in excess of four years, and suspended the execution
of the dishonorable discharge pending completion of the appellate
review of your conviction and sentence. Due to administrative
error, the unofficial record of your conviction which is filed in
your field record indicates that the dishonorable discharge was
not approved by the convening authority. On 9 July 1998, the
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces affirmed the decision of
the Navy and Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, which denied
the appeal of your conviction and sentence. On 13 October 1988,
the convening authority directed the execution of the
dishonorable discharge, and you were so discharged on that date.
The Board did not accept your contention to the effect that the
convening authority did not approve the dishonorable discharge
that was adjudged in your case, as it is clear in the official
record that the discharge was properly approved by the convening
authority and ordered executed. The Board was not persuaded that
it would be in the interest of justice to upgrade your discharge,
given the serious nature of your offenses. 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,
Loe)
W. DEAN PF
Executive Di
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05591-00
The record shows that on 6 March 1995 the U. S. you began appellate leave After your release from confinement, and remained in that status until the dishonorable discharge was Navy- issued. Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the proceedings and set aside the finding of guilty to the charge of disrespect A majority of the court but affirmed the remaining findings. 1996, the Court of Criminal Appeals again set aside your conviction of disrespect, once again found, on a split...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02504-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 December 2008. As you have been previously informed the Board is prevented by law from reviewing courts-martial and must limit its review to determining if the court-martial sentence should be reduced as a matter of clemency. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06867-06
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 6 November 2002, the Naval Clemency Board mitigated the dishonorable discharge to a bad conduct discharge. 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.
USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1002044
The Applicant’s service record documents that he completed the adjudicated period of confinement as awarded by the Special Court-Martial sentence. On 14 May 1996, the Applicant submitted a request for clemency to the Convening Authority; on 19 August, the Convening Authority acted on the request for clemency and reduced the sentence of confinement for six years to a period of four years. Having conducted a detailed review of both the records of trial by Special and by General Court-Martial...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00169-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Na-1 Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 May 1999. The Board concluded that the foregoing factor and contention were insufficient to warrant recharacterizaton of your discharge given your record of two NJPs and a conviction by a special court-martial in only 14 months of service. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500792
The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (2) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USMCR (DEP) 20000930 – 20001010 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 20001011 Date of Discharge: 20030724 Length of Service (years,...
USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100546
Types of Documents Submitted/reviewedRelated to Military Service: DD 214:Service/Medical Record:Other Records: Related to Post-Service Period: Employment: Finances: Education/Training: Health/Medical Records: Rehabilitation/Treatment: Criminal Records: Personal Documentation: Community Service: References: Department of VA letter: Other Documentation: Additional Statements:From Applicant: From/To Representation:From/ToCongress member: Pertinent Regulation/Law A. Paragraph 1105, DISCHARGE...
USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600781
After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board determined that clemency was not warranted and that the characterization of discharge was appropriate. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (State Director of Veterans Affair-6) Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 4) Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 1) PART II -...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00179-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 October 2010. 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 applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500248
2: "After a review of the Former Service Members (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all of the evidence assembled for review, we continue to note the contention of the appellant in her request for a discharge upgrade of her current discharge of Bad conduct to that of Honorable.The FSM served on active service from January 6, 1992 to March 11, 1994 at which time she was discharged for court martial...