DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DOC 20370-5100
TAL
Docket No: 3701-09
5 February 2010
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 27 January 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 22 September 1970 at age 22
and served for a year and three months without disciplinary
incident. However, on 10 December 1971, you received nonjudicial
punishment (NUP) for disrespect and were awarded a reduction in
paygrade, extra duty for 30 days, and a $140 forfeiture of pay,
which was subsequently suspended for four months. On 2 August
1972 you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of
reckless driving and absence from your appointed place of duty.
You were sentenced to a $100 forfeiture of pay, confinement at
hard labor for 30 days, and reduction to paygrade E-1.
On 22 September 1972 you were transferred to the Marine Corps
Reserve under honorable conditions. Subsequently, at the
expiration of your enlistment, you were issued a general
discharge. In this regard, character of service is based, in
part, on conduct and proficiency averages which are computed from
Marks assigned during periodic evaluations. Your conduct average
was 3.8. An average of 4.0 in conduct was required at the time
of your discharge for a fully honorable characterization of
service.
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 assertion that your offenses did not warrant
conviction by court-martial. Nevertheless, the Board concluded
these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization
of your discharge because of your repetitive misconduct which
resulted in NUP and SPCM, and since your conduct average was
insufficiently high to warrant an honorable discharge.
‘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,
yen.
W. DEAN PFE
Executive Di ar
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4660 13
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 a change in your characterization of service given-your NUP, SPCM conviction, and failure to attain the required average in conduct. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03314-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 February 2010. On 10 October 1973, you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of six instances of disobedience. 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 | 12405-09
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. 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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04823-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 February 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 01057-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 November 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 | 10985-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 July 2010. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your NUP and SPCM conviction for very serious 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 | 06514-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your general discharge because of your...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03935-09
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. You received the BCD after appellate review was complete. 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 | 04170-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 February 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. 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 | CY2006 | 08600-06
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 July 2007. your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Nevertheless, on 17 November 1969 you received your sixth NUP for failure to obey a lawful order and were awarded restriction and extra duty for 14 days. The record further reflects that on 1...