Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03403-08
Original file (03403-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

SMS
Docket No: 3403-08
8 January 2009

 

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

7 January 2009. 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.

On 18 July 1979, you enlisted in the Marine Corps at age 17 with
parental consent. On 16 April 1980, you were counseled for failing
to muster. On 9 January and 2 June 1981, you had nonjudicial
punishment (NUP) for disrespect, absence from your appointed place of
duty, and possession of marijuana. On 13 June 1981, you were
counseled regarding your base traffic court convictions of driving
while intoxicated and failure to obey traffic signals. On

20 August 1981, you had NUP for absence from your appointed place

of duty. On 30 September 1981, you were counseled regarding
deficiencies in your performance and conduct and warned that further
infractions could result in administrative separation. On

7 October and 15 December 1981, you had NJP for disobedience of a
lawful order, absence from your appointed place of duty, and
violation of uniform regulations.

Based on the information currently contained in the record, it
appears that your commanding officer initiated administrative
separation by reason of misconduct due to frequent discreditable
involvement. In connection with this processing, you would have
acknowledged that separation could result in an other than honorable
(OTH) discharge and been given an opportunity to have your case heard
by an administrative discharge board (ADB). Apparently, the
separation authority approved the discharge recommendation and
directed an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct due to frequent
discreditable involvement. On 1 March 1982, you were so discharged.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potential mitigation, such as your youth. The
Board also considered your contentions that inaccurate information
was used as evidence and that you should have been given more options
to save your career. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these
factors and contentions were not sufficient to warrant
recharacterization of your discharge due to the seriousness of your
misconduct that continued even after you were counseled on three
occasions and also warned that further infractions could result in
administrative separation. Furthermore, the record shows that you
were discharged as a result of your disciplinary actions that
included five NJP's, and there is no evidence in the record to
support your contention of inaccurate information. The Board also
noted that you would have had the right to have your case heard by an
ADB, which was your best opportunity for retention or a more
favorable 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, i

is

WwW. EAN PFET
Executive Dir

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02687-08

    Original file (02687-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 November 2008. In connection with this processing, you acknowledged that separation could result in an OTH discharge, waived the right to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB), and submitted a statement requesting an honorable discharge. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00598-08

    Original file (00598-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 August 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 | CY2008 | 02702-08

    Original file (02702-08.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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge due to the seriousness of your misconduct that continued even after you were warned that further infractions could result in administrative discharge. Consequently,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06162-08

    Original file (06162-08.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. During the period 4 April to 10 August 1978, you were in a UA status, a period of about 128 days. On 15 August 1979, the separation authority approved the recommendation and directed an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct due to frequent discreditable involvement.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05739-07

    Original file (05739-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for A Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 February 2008. The Board also considered your contention that a DD Form 214 was issued at the time of your discharge, which showed that you received a general discharge due to failure to adapt. 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 | CY2007 | 07999-07

    Original file (07999-07.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.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 17 September 1980, you enlisted in the Navy at age 17 with parental consent with an enlistment...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02963-09

    Original file (02963-09.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. You waived your rights to consult counsel, submit a statement or have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB). 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06405-06

    Original file (06405-06.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.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 7 July 1978 you enlisted in the Navy at age 18, and on 31 October 1978 you received nonjudicial...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08405-08

    Original file (08405-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 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. In connection with this processing, you acknowledged that separation could result in an other than honorable (OTH) discharge and elected to have your...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05504-07

    Original file (05504-07.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.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 24 September 1979, you enlisted in the Navy at age 18. On 23 April 1981, you had NJP for absence...