DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TAL
Docket No: 3729-10
14 January 2011
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 thé Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 12 January 2011. 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 reenlisted in the Marine Corps after over three years of
honorable service. You received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on
five occasions for unauthorized absence (UA) from your unit, four
instances of failure to go to your appointed place of duty, and
wrongfully disobeying a lawful written order, After your third
NIP, you were counseled and warned further misconduct could
result in administrative separation. On 22 August 1984, you were
notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of
misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. After consulting with
legal counsel, you elected to present your case to an
administrative discharge board (ADB). On 11 October 1984, an ADB
recommended discharge under other than honorable (OTH) conditions
by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. Your
commanding officer concurred with the ADB’s recommendation and
forwarded your case to the discharge authority for review. The
separation authority directed an OTH discharge by reason of
misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and on 29 October 1984,
you were so discharged.
oe
The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, prior
honorable service, and overall record of service.
Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not
sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given
the seriousness of your misconduct that resulted in five NUPs.
Additionally, after your third NJP, you were counseled and warned
that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge
action. 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.
4
3
Sincerely,
4 W. DEAN P E
a Executive °
ate
\
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02617-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 December 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. Additionally, after your third NJP, you were counseled and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10771-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 June 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 | CY2012 | 03160-12
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 after your second NUP that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action. 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 | CY2010 | 12091-10
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. The discharge authority concurred and directed an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct due to 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 injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06290-10
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. The separation 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 injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 00207 12
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 March 1984, you were counseled and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action. 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 | CY2012 | 00971 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 November 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. You were so discharged on 7 May 1985.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06381-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 April 2011. further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action. 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 | CY2013 | NR6723 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 August 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. You were warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00922-11
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. Subsequently, administrative discharge action was initiated 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 injustice.