Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06287-10
Original file (06287-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

TAL
Docket No: 6287-10
24 March 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 the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 17 March 2011. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed jin 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

Lnjvetice:.

You enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active
duty on 29 March 1972 at age 18. On 2 October through

31 October 1972, you received nonjudicial punishment (NOP) on
three occasions for two instances of unauthorized absence (UA)
from your unit for periods totaling nine days, failure to go to
your appointed place of duty, insubordinate conduct toward a
superior noncommissioned officer, two instances of failure to
obey a lawful order, breaking restriction, carrying a concealed
weapon and sleeping on post. On 19 March 1973, you were
convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of UA from your unit
for a period of 39 days. The sentence imposed was confinement
for one month and a forfeiture of pay. On 19 October 1993, you
were again convicted by SPCM of UA from your unit for a period of
35 days. The sentenced imposed was confinement for 35 days and a
forfeiture of pay. On 13 December 1973, you received NUP for
wrongful possession of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) and
marijuana. On 3 January 1974, you were counseled regarding your
misconduct and warned that further offenses could result in
administrative separation. On 14 January 1974, you received NJP
for failure to go to your appointed place of duty. On

15 February 1974, you received NUP for two instances of failure
to go to your appointed place of duty. On 23 February 1974, you
again received NJP for failure to obey a lawful general order by
use and possession of marijuana on board Camp Pendleton,
California. You were notified of pending administrative
discharge processing with an other than honorable (OTH) discharge
due to misconduct. You waived all of your procedural rights,
including your right to an administrative discharge aboard (ADB).
On 13 September 1974, you received the OTH discharge for
misconduct (frequent involvement).

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 the seriousness of your misconduct that
resulted in seven NUPs, two SPCMs and periods of UA that totaled
over two months. Finally, the Board noted that you waived the
right to an ADB, your best chance for retention or a better
characterization of service. 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,

W. DEAN PREGF
Executive Yirdctor

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4244-13

    Original file (NR4244-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your . 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 material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR5909 13

    Original file (NR5909 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 June 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 probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4993 13

    Original file (NR4993 13.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 May 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 probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04851-11

    Original file (04851-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 February 2012. 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 six NUPs, and periods of UA totaling over one month. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07317-10

    Original file (07317-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 March 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 | NR4992 13

    Original file (NR4992 13.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 May 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. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given the seriousness of your...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00083-11

    Original file (00083-11.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. On 23 March 1972, you received NUP for being UA for four days. 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 | 07691-09

    Original file (07691-09.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. You were notified of pending administrative discharge processing with an other than honorable (OTH) discharge due to 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02177-08

    Original file (02177-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 October 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 10 May 1985, you were so discharged.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04352-11

    Original file (04352-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 February 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...