Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02653-09
Original file (02653-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

 

TAL
Docket No: 02653-09
29 December 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-membér panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 9 December 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 28 June 1982 at age 18. On 19 duly 1983, you received
nonjudicial punishment (MJP) for unauthorized absence (UA) from
your unit. On 5 October 1983, you were convicted by summary
court-martial (SCM) of wrongful possession of 2.5 grams of
marijuana. On 12 December 1983, you received NIP for UA from
your appointed place of duty. On 27 April 1984, you were
convicted by SCM for a 60 day period of UA. On 28 December 1984,
you received NuP For assault. Additionally, after two NJP‘s and
two SCM’s, you were counseled and warned that further misconduct
could result in administrative discharge action. Based on the
information currently contained in your record it appears that
you were subsequently involuntarily processed for administrative
‘“@ischarge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.
In connection with this processing, you would have acknowledged
the separation action and your commanding officer would have
forwarded his recommendation that you be Qischarged under other
than honorable (OTH) conditions. On 1 February 1985, the |
separation authority directed an OTH discharge by reason of
misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. On 5 February 1985 you
were so discharged.

The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, and
overall record of service. Nevertheless, the Board found that
these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization
of your discharge given the seriousness of your misconduct that
‘resulted in two SCM’s and three NUJP’s, one of which was imposed
after you were counseled and warned of the consequences of ,
further misconduct. Finally, 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,

W. DEAN PF BE

Executive Di

Similar Decisions

  • 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 | CY2011 | 00082-11

    Original file (00082-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 September 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. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge, given your record of two...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 01507-11

    Original file (01507-11.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. The discharge authority concurred and directed an OTH 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 | CY2009 | 00260-09

    Original file (00260-09.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. 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 | CY2009 | 01892-09

    Original file (01892-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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 | CY2012 | 00286-12

    Original file (00286-12.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 September 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. On 9 May 1986, you received NUP for being UA for one day.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02617-09

    Original file (02617-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

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

    Original file (08555-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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 | 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 | CY2008 | 02177-08

    Original file (02177-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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. On 10 May 1985, you were so discharged.