DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON BDC 20370-5100
REC
Docket No: 12142-09
25 August 2010
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 25 August 2010. 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 1 November 1974, at age 17. On 13 November 1974, you
received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for two instances of
disobeying a lawful order. On 27 October 1975, you received NUP
for being disrespectful in language and mannerisms. On 7 August
1975, you received NUP for two instances of being in an
unauthorized absence (UA) status, and exceeding the directed
liberty limits. On 24 November 1975, you received NUP for being
UA. On 22 January 1976, you received NUP for dereliction in your
duties. On 23 February 1976, you received NIP for assault with a
weapon with intent to due bodily harm, unlawfully discharging a
firearm, failing to register a weapon on base, and leaving your
post without being properly relieved. On 14 April 1976,
administrative separation action was initiated by reason of
misconduct. You waived your rights to consult counsel, submit a2
statement or have your case heard by an administrative discharge
board (ADB). Your commanding officer forwarded his
recommendation that you be discharged under other than honorable
conditions by reason of misconduct. The discharge authority
directed an other than honorable discharge by reason of
misconduct. On 25 May 1976, you were so discharged. At that
time you were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, conduct,
and overall record of service. Nevertheless, the Board found
that these factors were not sufficient to warrant changing the
reenlistment code or characterization of your discharge, given
your record of six NUJP’s for misconduct. In this regard, an RE-~4
*reenlistment code is required when an individual is discharged
‘prior to the expiration of his term of active obligated service
for misconduct and is not recommended for retention.
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,
-
\SS
W. DEAN PF
Executive D x
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03345-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 February 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR2487-13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 February 2014. 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 | CY2010 | 01675-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 October 2010. The Board -also noted that you ‘were fortunate to receive a general discharge, because when individuals are separated for misconduct ghey normally receive an other than honorable characterization of service. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 05054-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 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. On 28 December 1976 the separation authority directed that you be separated for misconduct with a general discharge.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02408-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 January 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 because of your misconduct...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09930-09
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 6 July 1973, you received NUP for being UA for a period of 15 days. Your case was heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB), which voted two to one in favor of an other than honorable discharge.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01889-09
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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07251-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 April 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 December 1975, you received NUP for being UA for three days.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10235-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 June 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 5 March 1976, your commanding officer initiated administrative separation processing under the Marine Corps ' expeditious discharge program, and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 11021-07
A three-member panel jof the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 August 2008. After careful and congpcientious 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...