Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10634-09
Original file (10634-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

 

TUR
Docket No: 10634-0609
12 August 2010

bea

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 10 August 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 31 July 1984 at age 19, You
served for about 10 months without disciplinary incident, but
during the period from 7 May to 12 September 1985, you received
nonjudicial punishment (NUP) on three occasions for absence from
your appointed place of duty, two specifications of failure to
obey a lawful order as evidenced by purchasing and consuming
alcoholic beverages as a minor, and forgery.

On 24 April 1986 you were convicted by summary court-martial
(SCM) of failure to go to your appointed place of duty and a four
day period of unauthorized absence (UA). Shortly thereafter, on
16 May 1986, you were notified of pending administrative
separation action by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of
Misconduct. After waiving your procedural rights to legal
counsel and an administrative discharge board (ADB), your
commanding officer recommended discharge under other than
honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of
misconduct as evidenced by your record of three NJPs. On 28 May
1986 the discharge authority approved this recommendation and
directed your commanding officer to discharge you under other
than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct, and on 4 June
1986, 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. It also
considered your assertion that you were to receive a general or
gooncnabie discharge 90 days after being separated from the Marine
vforps. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not
Feufficient Co warrant recharacterization of your discharge
because of the seriousness of your repeated misconduct. Finally,
no dgscharge is automatically upgraded due solely to the passage
of me. 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,

\y Done
W. DEAN PFET
Executive Ditéc

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11205-09

    Original file (11205-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 August 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 | 03355-09

    Original file (03355-09.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 8 September 1986, the discharge authority 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01608-10

    Original file (01608-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03822-07

    Original file (03822-07.rtf) 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.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 Navy on 8 November 1983 at age 18 and served without disciplinary incident until...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04874-09

    Original file (04874-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 April 2010. After waiving your procedural rights, the discharge authority directed discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct, and on 3 November 1989, you were 50 discharged. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 12970 11

    Original file (12970 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 3 October 2012. After waiving your procedural right to consult with legal counsel and to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB), on 5 January 1988, your commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and minor disciplinary infractions. Consequently, when...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01531-10

    Original file (01531-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 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. You were warned that any further deficiencies in your performance could result in an administrative separation and disciplinary action.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04135-09

    Original file (04135-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 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. Additionally, you were counseled and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12857-09

    Original file (12857-09.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 9 November 1994, you received your second NUP for failure to go to your appointed place of duty and were awarded restriction and extra duty for 30 days and a $388 forfeiture of pay, which was suspended for six months. In this regard, the Board determined that a personal...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 05340-09

    Original file (05340-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 April 2010. 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. 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...