Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06373-08
Original file (06373-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 .

 

TUR
Docket No: 6373-08
7 May 2009

 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, 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 May 2009. The names and votes of the members
of the panel will be furnished upon request. 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 April 1973 at age 19 and
immediately began a period of active duty. You served without
disciplinary infraction until 23 August 1973, when you received

nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for breaking restriction and failure
to obey a lawful order.

During the period from 26 June to 20 December 1974 you received
NJP on three more occasions for two specifications of
disobedience and two periods of absence from your appointed place
of duty. On 12 March 1975 you received your fifth NJP for
absence from your appointed place of duty.

Subsequently, on 9 April 1976, you were released from active duty
under honorable conditions and transferred to the Marine Corps

Reserve. On 9 April 1979, upon completion of your obligated
service, you were issued a general discharge.
At the time of your release and discharge character of service
was based, in part, on conduct and proficiency averages which
were computed from marks assigned during periodic evaluations.
Your conduct average was 3.9. However, an average of 4.0 in
conduct was required at the time of your release and discharge
for a fully honorable characterization of service.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth and desire to upgrade your discharge. It also
considered your assertions that you were told that you would
receive an honorable discharge and that there must be an error in
your record if the general discharge was based on certain scores
in your record. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors
were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your
discharge because of the seriousness of your repetitive
misconduct which resulted in five NUPs. Finally, the Board noted
that with your record of misconduct, you were fortunate to
receive a general discharge. Accordingly, your application has
been denied.

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,

Woes

W. DEAN PFE
Executive Di

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 12563 11

    Original file (12563 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 3 October 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. However, during the period from 11 July to 6 September 1973, you received three more NUPs for a one day period of unauthorized absence (UA),...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 01496 12

    Original file (01496 12.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. In accordance with the foregoing, on 17 November 1974, upon completion of your required active service, you received a general discharge under honorable conditions. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08034-08

    Original file (08034-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 June 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. About six months later, on 30 December 1966 you received NUP for a four day period of unauthorized absence (UA) and disorderly conduct.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06912-08

    Original file (06912-08.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. On 22 December 1976, you received a general discharge based on your average conduct marks. 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 | 05744-08

    Original file (05744-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 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. Although your proficiency and conduct mark averages met the requirement for an honorable discharge, given your disciplinary actions, the Board...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02468-09

    Original file (02468-09.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. During the period from 7 August to 1 October 1969 you received three more NJPs for a two day period of unauthorized absence (UA), breaking restriction, and negligence due to failure to clean your rifle. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05234-09

    Original file (05234-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 March 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 probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01503-10

    Original file (01503-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 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. 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 | NR6602 13

    Original file (NR6602 13.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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of Reckabis Material error or injustice. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02395-09

    Original file (02395-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 March 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. It also considered your statement regarding your period of service and the circumstances resulting in your discharge.