DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-8100 .
TOR
Decket No: 8040-08
14 July 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 7 July 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 23 September 1981 at age 19
and began a period of active duty on 28 September 1981. You
served for eight months without disciplinary infraction, but on
28 May 1982 you received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for an 18
day period of unauthorized absence (UA) and failure to go to your
appointed place of duty.
On 12 September 1983 you received NUP for two periods of UA
totalling seven days. About three months later, on 15 December
1983, you were repeatedly counselled regarding deficiencies in
your performance and conduct, specifically, unsatisfactory
performance, failure to go to your appointed place of duty,
nonresponsible personality traits which precluded you from being
trustworthy, and UA.
On 6 January 1984 you were convicted by summary court-martial
(SCM) of a seven day period of UA and sentenced to a $300
forfeiture of pay, confinement at hard labor for 30 days, and
reduction to paygrade E-1. During the period from 1 to 27
February 1984 your immediate superiors submitted written
statements recommending discharge due to your unsatisfactory
performance as evidenced by you being a consistent UA offender
and a constant burden. ,
On 23 March 1984 you were notified of pending administrative
separation action by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of
misconduct. At that time you waived your right to consult with
legal counsel and to present your case to an administrative
discharge board (ADB). Subsequently, your commanding officer
recommended an other than honorable discharge by reason of
misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. On 9 April 1984 the
discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed
your commanding officer to issue you an other than honorable
discharge by reason of misconduct, and on 25 April 1984 you were
so discharged.
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 committed no grievous
infractions, maintained high proficiency and conduct marks, and
served honorably. It further considered your assertion that you
were a wild kid who could not be controlled. 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 two NUPs and a
court-martial conviction. Further, you were given an opportunity
to defend yourself, but waived your procedural right to consult
with legal counsel and to present your case to an ADB. Finally,
there is evidence in the record that is contrary to your
assertions. 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,
\Nuad
W. DEAN PFET
Executive Dirdet
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01892-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 November 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 25 August 1984, the separation authority directed an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08041-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 July 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 | 07538-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 June 2009. On 7 December 1984 your commanding officer recommended an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. 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 | 05807-08
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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge due to the seriousness of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08887-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 June 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 | CY2009 | 00260-09
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 23 April 1986, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. 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 | 05380-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 April 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 | CY2009 | 02617-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 December 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. Additionally, after your third NJP, you were counseled and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08555-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 May 2009. 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 17 July 1985, you had NUP for another unspecified period of UA and were warned that further infractions could result in an other than honorable (OTH) discharge.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02439-09
A ches tietiber panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your , application on 12 January 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...