Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01540-10
Original file (01540-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

TUR
Docket No: 1540-10
20 October 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 13 October 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 21 October 1988 at age 18 and
began a period of active duty on 19 July 1989. You served
without disciplinary incident until 27 February 1990, when you
received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for a 29 day period of
unauthorized absence (UA). You were also counselled regarding
your substandard performance of duty and failure to conform to
Military standards. Shortly thereafter, on 10 June 1990, you
received NJP for a seven day period of UA. About five months
later, on 1 November 1991, you were counselled regarding your
frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military
authorities and minor incidents that were prejudicial to good
order and discipline.

On 4 March 1992 you received your third NUP for two periods of UA
totalling 20 days and were awarded a $500 forfeiture of pay,
extra duty and restriction for 45 days, and a reduction to
paygrade E-2. Subsequently, in April 1992, you were processed
for an administrative separation by reason of misconduct due to
minor disciplinary infractions. As a result of this action, the
discharge authority directed your commanding officer to issue you
an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct, and on
5 June 1992, 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, desire to upgrade your discharge, and assertion that
the minor infractions did not warrant discharge. Nevertheless,
the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant
recharacterization of your discharge because of your repetitive
Wuconduct; whicweaultad in three NJPs and numerous counselling
sessions for your poor performance. 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 PFE
Executive Diyetjo

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 07364-00

    Original file (07364-00.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel for the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 May 2001. 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 | CY2001 | 04113-01

    Original file (04113-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The punishment imposed was a $176 forfeiture of On 21 August 1991 you received NJP for a day of unauthorized absence pay and restriction and extra duty for 14 days. However, the Board concluded these factors and Accordingly, your application has been Given all the circumstances of your case, NJPs. 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 | CY2001 | 04529-01

    Original file (04529-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 11 February 1995 the Chief of Naval Personnel directed an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to You were so discharged on commission of a serious offense. The Board concluded that the reenlistment Since you were treated no The Board did not consider the characterization of your discharge since you have not exhausted your administrative remedies by first petitioning the Naval Discharge Review Board. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04870-09

    Original file (04870-09.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. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with ail 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 | 10742-09

    Original file (10742-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 August 2010. However, the record does not reflect the disciplinary action taken, if any, for this period of UA. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 August 2010.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10617-09

    Original file (10617-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 July 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 | CY2008 | 08405-08

    Original file (08405-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 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. In connection with this processing, you acknowledged that separation could result in an other than honorable (OTH) discharge and elected to have your...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03443-10

    Original file (03443-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 February 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09320-09

    Original file (09320-09.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 June 2010. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 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 | 12568-09

    Original file (12568-09.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 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...