Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04443-10
Original file (04443-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

Docket No: 04443-10
4 February 2011

 

 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10, ef 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 2 February 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 enlisted in the Marine Corps on 1 August 1986, at the age of
19. On 16 October 1986, you received nonjudicial punishment
(NJP) for willfully disobeying a lawful order. On 28 June 1987,
you received NUP for being disrespectful toward a superior
commissioned officer, failure to obey an order by drinking
alcohol underage, willfully destroying government property and
being drunk and disorderly. On 8 September 1987, you received
NJP for being absent from your appointed place of duty, and
disobeying a lawful order. On 8 June 1988, you received NUP for
violating a base order by having an open can of alcohol in your
barracks. On 7 April 1989, you were convicted by a general
court-martial (GCM) of being in an unauthorized absence (UA)
status for 185 days, and assaulting a fellow Marine, by cutting
him on the head, nose, buttocks, and right thumb with a knife.
You were sentenced to a forfeiture of all pay and allowances,
confinement for two years, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD).
The discharge authority directed the execution of your BCD. On
1 August 1990, after appellate review, you were so discharged.

The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and
overall record of service. Nevertheless, the Board found that
these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization
of your discharge given your record of five NJP’s and conviction
by a GCM. 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,

Meee

DEAN P
ee Lo

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05796-10

    Original file (05796-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 March 2011. On 14 June 1979, you received NUP for being disrespectful toward you a chief petty officer on two occasions, and failure to obey a written regulation. On 17 February 1983, after appellate review, you received the BCD.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 06198-11

    Original file (06198-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 March 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. 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 | CY1999 | 08319-09

    Original file (08319-09.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 June 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 | 08319-09

    Original file (08319-09.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 June 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 | 10773-09

    Original file (10773-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 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. Your case was heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB), which voted two to one in favor of an under other than honorable discharge.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 00923 12

    Original file (00923 12.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 October 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. In this regard, an RE-4 reenlistment code is required when an individual is discharged for misconduct and is not recommended for retention.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06182-10

    Original file (06182-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 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. 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 | CY2013 | NR1420 13

    Original file (NR1420 13.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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient ‘ro establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. You were warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 02842-11

    Original file (02842-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 December 2011. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR1472 13

    Original file (NR1472 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your — application on 4 September 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. On 8 April 1987, you were again convicted by SPCM of five instances of unauthorized absence from your unit for a period totaling 26 days, failure to go to...