DE PAST aa
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAV/L RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WAGHIRG TON DG 20370-5100 |
SUN
Docket No: 10245-08
5 October 2009
“This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval xecord 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 29 September. 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.
You enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active
duty on 9 October 1982 at age 19. During the period. from
18 February 1983 to 31 October 1985, you received four
nonjudicial punishments (NJP’s) for two periods of unauthorized
absence (UA), disobedience, breach of the peace, driving under
the influence of alcohol, possession of an open container of
alcohol, drunk and disorderly conduct, and assault.
Additionally, after your second NJP, you were counseled and
warned that further misconduct could result in administrative
discharge action.
On 18 November 1985, administrative discharge action was
initiated by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.
You waived your rights to consult counsel, submit a statement or
have your case heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB).
Your commanding officer forwarded his recommendation that you he
discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of
misconduct. On 22 November 1985, the discharge authority
directed an other than honorable discharge by reason of
misconduct. On 22 November 1985 you were so discharged.
whe Soard, im its review of your application, cevefully weighed
all pocentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, overall
recorG of services, and post service accomplishments.
Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not
sufficient to warrant cechsracterization of your discharge given
your .acord of four NUP's, two of which were imposed after you
were counseled and warned of the consequences of further _
thigconduct. Further, the Board noted that you waived the right
to an ADB, your best opportunity for retention or a better
characterization of service. 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 guch 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 thie 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 ig on the applicant to demonstrate the
existence of probable material errer or injustice.
Sincerely,
W. DEAN PF
Executive Direc
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09978-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 February 2009. You were also counseled regarding this offense and warned that further infractions could result in disciplinary action or an other than honorable (OTH) discharge. On 8 January 1985, you had NJP for use of marijuana.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08384-08
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. You were warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action. 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 | 06863-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 April 2009. The discharge authority then directed discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason 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 | 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 | 04685-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 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. On 19 December 1985, you received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for a four day period of unauthorized absence (UA) from your unit and dereliction of duty.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 11901-08
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. On 15 June 1989, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. On 23 June 1989, the discharge authority directed an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR6689 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 July 2014. 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 | 11779-08
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. , On 31 December 1988, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct. Consequently, when applying for a. correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the oo existence of probable material error or injustice.
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 | CY2007 | 09753-07
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. You were counseled and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action. 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.