Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01685-10
Original file (01685-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

BJG
Docket No: 1685-10
20 October 2010

From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
TO: Secretary of the Navy

uj XL

REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD

Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552

Encl: (1) DD Form 149 dtd 2 Feb 10 w/attchs
(2) Subject’s naval record

1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject,
hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written
application, enclosure (1), with this Board requesting, in
effect, that his naval record be corrected by changing the
characterization of his general discharge assigned on 17
February 1988 be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge.

2. The Board, consisting of Mess, 7 CE 21d
Ms. QQ sand Spain, reviewed allegations of error and
injustice on 19 October 2010, and pursuant to its regulations,
determined that relief should be granted. Documentary material
considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval
records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.

3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record
pertaining to Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice,
finds as follows:

a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all
administrative remedies which were available under existing law
and regulations within the Department of the Navy.

b. Petitioner entered active duty in the Marine Corps on
27 August 1984. He was not the subject of any disciplinary
action during his term of service. On 5 March 1987, he was
assigned to weight control. On 28 July 1987, he was counseled
and warned that if he did not conform to weight standards he
could be administratively separated. On 1’ February 1988, he
received a general characterization of service for
unsatisfactory performance (failure to conform to weight
standards), and was assigned an RE-3P (failure to meet physical
standards) reenlistment code.

c. Characterization of service is based in part on
proficiency and conduct marks assigned on a periodic basis.
Petitioner’s proficiency and conduct mark average was 4.5/4.6,
respectively. A 3.0/4.0 average was required for a fully
honorable discharge.

CONCLUSION:

Upon reviq@w and consideration of all the evidence of record,
the Board finds the existence of an error and injustice
warranting upgrading Petitioner's general discharge to an
honorable characterization of service. The Board particularly
notes that he had no disciplinary action and his proficiency
and conduct mark average was sufficiently high to warrant an
honorable discharge. In view of the above, the Board directs
the following corrective action.

RECOMMENDATION :

a. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show
that on 17 February 1988, he was issued an honorable discharge,
vice the general characterization of service on the same date.

b. That any material or entries @mconsistent with or *
relatimg’to the Board’s recommendation be corrected, removed or
completely expunged from Petitioner's record and that no such
entries or material be added to the record in the future.

c. That any material directed to be removed from
Petitioner’s naval record be returned to the Board, together
with a copy of this Report of Proceedings, for retention ina
confidential file maintained for such purpose, with no cross
reference being made a part of Petitioner’s naval record.

d. That the Department of Veterans Affairs be informed
that he applied to this Board on 6 February 2010.
4. Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the revised Procedures of the
Board for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal
Regulations, Section 723.6(c)) it is certified that a quorum
was present at the Board’s review and deliberations, and that
the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's
proceedings in the above entitled matter.

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN BRIAN J.‘“GEORGE
Recorder Acting Recorder
5. Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section

6(e) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of
Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section
723.6(e)) and having assured compliance with its provisions, it
is hereby announced that the foregoing corrective action, taken
under the authority of reference (a), has been approved by the
Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 01796-11

    Original file (01796-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 SJN Docket No: 01796-1411 9 November 2011 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records Le Secretary of the Navy Sib): aaa RBA, RECORD OF Ue, Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C, 1552 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 with attachments (2) Case Summary (3) Subject's naval record 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Marine Corps, filed enclosure {1) with this...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00631-10

    Original file (00631-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Marine Corps, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that her general characterization of service issued on 25 October 1991, be changed to an honorable discharge. In view of the foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the following corrective action. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show that she was issued an honorable discharge on 25 October 1991 vice...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11221-06

    Original file (11221-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The reenlistment code was properly assigned and was based on his overall service record.A review of his service record indicates that he was counseled concerning failure to be at his appointed place of duty; drunk driving; underage drinking; breaking restrictions; disobedience of orders; not being recommended for promotion; failure to comply with current Marine Corps weight standards; and3poor performance while assigned to the Battalion weight control program. The service record entry dated...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06344-01

    Original file (06344-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Petitioner enlisted in the Marine Corps on 18 June 1981 at the age of 18. d. During the period from 24 March 1982 to 11 May 1983, Petitioner was assigned to a weight control/personal appearance program on four occasions. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show that he was honorably discharged on 17 September 1984 vice issued the general discharge under honorable conditions on the same day. That any material directed to be removed from Petitioner's naval record be returned to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05249-08

    Original file (05249-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 TUR Docket No: 5249-08 11 February 2009 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW NAVAL RECORD ORM Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Marine Corps, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that the characterization of her discharge be changed. Based on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03308-11

    Original file (03308-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Marine Corps, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that the characterization of his general discharge be changed. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Exnicios, Hess, and Pfeiffer, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 18 January 2012 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02620-08

    Original file (02620-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 SMS Docket No: 2620-08 21 November 2008 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. On 19 December 1988, the separation authority approved the separation recommendation and directed an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 07784-05

    Original file (07784-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a) , Petitioner, a former member of the Navy Reserve, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected to show a more favorable type of discharge than the other than honorable discharge issued on 16 March 1988.2 The Board consisting of Messrs andreviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 16 August 2006 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06260-99

    Original file (06260-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    1552 (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments _ (2) Case Summary (3) Subject's naval record From: To: Subj: Ref: Encl: Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a 1. former enlisted member of the United States Marine Corps filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting a better characterization of service than the general discharge issued on 26 May 1983. considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. was being...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06452-10

    Original file (06452-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Marine Corps, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting recharacterization of his general discharge from active duty. The Board, consisting of Mr. Blanchard, Mr. Sproul, and Mr. Genteman, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 12 April 2011 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of...