DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASRINGTON DC 20370-5100
SON
Docket No: 01074-09
25 November 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 24 November 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 reenlisted in the Marine Corps after serving over three years
of honorable service. During the period from 30 August 1989 to
18 October 1991, you received three nonjudicial punishments
(NUP’'s) for three periods of unauthorized absence, missing
movement, and drunk and disorderly conduct. Additionally, you
‘were counseled and warned, after your second NJP, that further
misconduct could result in administrative discharge action.
On 19 October 1991, 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). On
23 October 1991, your commanding officer forwarded his
recommendation that you be discharged under honorable conditions
by reason of misconduct. However, on 1 November 1991, the
separating authority directed an other than honorable discharge
by reason of misconduct. On 11 November 1991 you were so
discharged.
The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your prior honorable
service and overall record of your last period of service.
Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not
sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given
your record of three NUP’s, one of which was imposed after you
were counseled and warned of the consequences of further
misconduct. 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 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,
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 11851-08
A three-member panel of the Board-for Correction of Naval ' Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 October 2009. Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all materiai submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03688-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 March 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 28 August 1991, the discharge authority directed an other than honorable (OTH) discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01894-09
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 16 April 1993, administrative discharge action was initiated by.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08405-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 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. In connection with this processing, you acknowledged that separation could result in an other than honorable (OTH) discharge and elected to have your...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR2510-13
A three- member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 March 2014. You were "80 discharged .On 29 October 1992. , Ce The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed all potentially’ mitigating factors, such as your record of service, post service accomplishments, character letters, and desire to upgrade your discharge. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 11822-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 October 2009. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with ali 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 | 02235-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 October 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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge due to the seriousness of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11889-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 July 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 | CY2010 | 11360-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your _application on 9 August 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. On 29 October 1991 an ADB recommended an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and commission of a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04571-09
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 31 July 1991, you received NUP for drunk and disorderly conduct. 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.