Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 04933-08
Original file (04933-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

RDZ:ecb
Docket No. 04933-08
11 August 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 5 August 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.

You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 6 June 2001 at age 18. You
received your first nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 12 February
2003 for being absent from your place of duty and disobedience
of an order. On 29 June 2004 you were given a written warning

and counseled for poor performance of your military duties and
showing disrespect to your battalion commander. Unfortunately a

little over five months later you received your second NJP for
failure to go to your appointed place of duty and to obey a
lawful order. Again you were warned of the consequences of
engaging in further acts of misconduct. Less than three weeks
later you received your third NJP for attempting to use another
Marine’s stolen credit card to purchase clothing off base,
conspire with others to assault another Marine and unlawfully
enter the Marine’s room for the purpose of committing an

assault.

Based on the above disciplinary record you notified that you

would be administratively processed for a discharge under other
than conditions (OTH). At that time you waived your right to a
hearing where you would be represented by a military lawyer and
agreed to accept an OTH discharge. On 17 March 2005 you were so

discharged.

In its review of your application the Board took into account
your youth, the remorse you now feel for having engaged in
misconduct and your assertion that your misconduct was the
result of associating with “the wrong people.” Nevertheless the

Board concluded that in view of your repeated acts of
misconduct, some of which were serious and occurred after you

were given written warnings, your OTH discharge was properly
issued and should not be changed now as a matter of clemency.

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. ‘Sf PFET

Executive Dire xr

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07236-09

    Original file (07236-09.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 May 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 error...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10506-07

    Original file (10506-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel Records, application on 13 Au injustice were revie Sitting in executive session, f of the Board for Correction of Naval considered your ust 2008. Documentary ] of your application, support thereof, material considered by the Board consisted together with all material submitted in your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and polities. Based on your record of recommended for administrative separation pnorable (OTH) discharge.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08741-07

    Original file (08741-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, gitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 November 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. As a result, on 28 February 1975, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00079-11

    Original file (00079-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 April 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. 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 | CY2013 | NR3342-13

    Original file (NR3342-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    1980, you made a written request for an other _ than honorable (OTH) discharge to-avoid trial by court-martial for three instances of UA from your unit for a period totaling 30 days, failure to go to you appointed place of duty, . ‘The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as recharacterization of your. when your request for.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 13224-09

    Original file (13224-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 September 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10774-10

    Original file (10774-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 June 2011. On 28 January 1974 you submitted a written request for an other than honorable (OTH) discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for four instances of failure to go to your appointed place of duty, insubordinate conduct toward a superior noncommissioned officer, escaping from arrest, damage of government property, and two instances of assault. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04823-11

    Original file (04823-11.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 2012. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03584-09

    Original file (03584-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 January 2010. On 22 November 1968, you received NUP for UA from you appointed place of duty. On 28 May 1970 you were 8O discharged.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6693 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR6693 14_Redacted.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 June 2015. 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 palicies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...