Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02348-09
Original file (02348-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

 

TIR
Docket No: 2348-09
23 February 2010

 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions 6£f 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 23 February 2010. 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 9 June 1980 at age 17 and
began a period of active duty on 4 June 1981. You served without
disciplinary incident until 9 July 1981, when you received
nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for disrespect.

On 8 February 1984 you received NOP for wrongful use of
phencyclidine (PCP) and were awarded restriction and. extra duty
for 30 days, a $400 forfeiture of pay, and reduction to paygrade
E-2. On 24 February 1984 you received NUP for disobedience. The
punishment imposed was reduction to paygrade E-1, and a $400
forfeiture of pay. Nearly a year later, on 16 January 1985, you
were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of absence from
your. appointed place of duty and disrespect. You were sentenced
to a $463 forfeiture of pay and reduction to paygrade E-1.
On 25 March 1985 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). On 9 April 1985 your commanding officer
recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by
reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. On 9 May
1985 the discharge authority approved this recommendation and
directed separation under other than honorable conditions by
reason of misconduct and on 17 May 1985 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 so that you and
your children may obtain benefits. Nevertheless, the Board
concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant
recharacterization of your discharge because of your repetitive
misconduct which resulted in three NUPs and a SCM. Further, you
were given an opportunity to defend your actions, but waived your
procedural right to present your case to an ADB. 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,

   

W. DEAN P
Executive

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02392-09

    Original file (02392-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    RK three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 February 2010. Documentary material congidered 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 March 1988 you received NUP for two periods of UA totalling two days, failure to obey a lawful order, and four periods of absence from...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06684-10

    Original file (06684-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 November 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 | CY2009 | 12825-09

    Original file (12825-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 September 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 00207 12

    Original file (00207 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. On 9 March 1984, 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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06412-08

    Original file (06412-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 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 | CY2007 | 07972-07

    Original file (07972-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 September 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. 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 | 08040-08

    Original file (08040-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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 | CY2010 | 08887-10

    Original file (08887-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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 | CY2002 | 01439-02

    Original file (01439-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 August 2002. 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. Consequently,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00949-10

    Original file (00949-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your NUP and...