DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
SMS
Docket No: 5744-08
26 February 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 25 February 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 the evidence submitted was insufficient
to establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice.
On 25 November 1986, you enlisted in the Marine Corps at
age 18. On 25 February 1988, you were counseled regarding your
fraudulent use of another Marine's phone card, and warned that
further infractions could result in disciplinary action or
administrative separation. On 28 March 1988, you were
counseled regarding your frequent discreditable conduct and
warned that further infractions could result in disciplinary
action or an other than honorable discharge. During the period
21 March 1989 to 12 April 1990, you had nonjudicial punishment
on four occasions. Your offenses included two instances of
failure to go to your appointed place of duty, absence from
your appointed place of duty, disobedience of a lawful order,
making a false official statement, and a brief instance of
unauthorized absence (UA). On 28 April 1999, you were
counseled regarding your failure to go to your appointed place
of duty and warned that further infractions could result in
disciplinary action or administrative separation. On
9 August 1990, you had NJP for a brief instance of UA.
On 19 September 1990, suspended punishment was vacated
from the NUP dated 9 August 1990, and you were counseled
and given another administrative separation warning.
On 28 September 1990, you were released from active duty under
honorable conditions due to the completion of required active
service. On 17 March 1994, you were separated with a general
discharge due to the expiration of your obligated service.
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 contention that your proficiency
and conduct marks met the requirements for an honorable
discharge. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors
and contention were not sufficient to warrant
recharacterization of your service. In this regard,
characterization of service for members who are discharged due
to the completion of required active service is determined by
their conduct, actions, and proficiency and conduct marks
assigned on a periodic basis. Minimum acceptable average
proficiency and conduct marks of 3.0 and 4.0, respectively,
were required to form the basis for a fully honorable
characterization of service. Although your proficiency and
conduct mark averages met the requirement for an honorable
discharge, given your disciplinary actions, the Board found
that your service warranted a general 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,
\s
W. DEAN PFEI
Executive Dir
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01459-08
On 9 November 1990, the separation authority approved the ADB's recommendation and directed an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions. The majority finds that Petitioner's two disciplinary actions were proper and his discharge was in accordance with regulations, but also finds that his offenses were relatively minor as evidenced by his commanding officer's recommendation for a general discharge. The minority believes that Petitioner's overall service...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07929-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 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. 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 | 04379-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 February 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. Nevertheless, given your disciplinary actions, the Board found that your service warranted a general characterization of service.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07859-07
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.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 21 September 1987, you enlisted in the Marine Corps at age 18. On 12 October 1990, you were...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 07364-00
A three-member panel for the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 May 2001. 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 | CY2008 | 03136-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 February 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. On 20 March 1989, administrative discharge action was initiated to separate you by reason of alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure.
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 04695-98
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 August 1999. The record further reflects two periods of UA from 2-10 June and 22-23 June 1971, for which no disciplinary action is shown in the record. 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 | CY2008 | 02222-08
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 OTH discharge and waived the right to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB). Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 05706-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 August 2009. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your general discharge because of your substandard performance and conduct, civil conviction, and since your conduct average was insufficiently high to warrant a fully honorable characterization of service. Consequently, when applying for a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00406-08
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. The sentence included confinement, forfeitures of pay, reduction in rank, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD).