DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TUR
Docket No: 6480-10
20 October 2010
er
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 19 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 entered active duty in the Marine Corps on 1 June 2000. You
were promoted to the rank of captain on 1 October 2002 and served
for nearly seven years without disciplinary incident. However,
your record reflects that on 19 March 2007 you received
nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for two specifications of assault
consummated by a battery, two specifications of conduct
unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, and dereliction of duty.
The punishment imposed was a punitive letter of reprimand. The
record further reflects that you did not appeal the NUP.
As a result of the foregoing, you were required to show cause for
retention in the Marine Corps before a Board of Inquiry (BOT).
On 31 October 2007, a BOI determined that, although the
allegations for which you were required to show cause for
retention were proven by a preponderance of the evidence, you
were recommended retention. The BOI further recommended that
your case be closed. On 31 January 2008 this recommendation was
approved by the Deputy Commandant, Manpower and Reserve Affairs.
On 13 February 2009 you were advised that due to your twice
failing selection to the next higher grade, you were to be
*#separated from the Mavfine Corps. In this regard, on 1 August
7009, while ‘servispguidn the rank of captain, you were honorably
ischarged by wedegn of “Nonselection, Permanent Promotion.”
ihe, iQ at
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application
with attachments and addendum documentation, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your period of
honorable service, character references, letters of
recommendation, and desire to have your NJP and all references
thereto removed from the record and to have certain documents
corrected or reworded to reflect what you believe contain factual
or legal error. It also considered your desire to have your
record reflect that you were recommended for a commission in the
Marine Corps Reserve. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these
factors were not sufficient to warrant approval of such actions
because of the seriousness of your misconduct as a commissioned
officer in the Marine Corps, which resulted in NJP and failing to
select for promotion. Accordingly, your application has been
denied.
The rewording or rephrasing of “documents” in your record is an
administrative action which is not under the purview of the
Board. As such, the Board noted that you should contact
Headquarters, United States Marine Corps, Deputy Chief of Staff
for Manpower and Reserve Affairs (M&RA) Department, Code MMER,
3280 Russell Road, Quantico, VA 22134-5103 to request that
administrative corrections be made to your record.
In regards to your request to appear before the Board, be advised
that our regulations state that personal appearances before the
Board are not granted as a right, but only when it determines
that such an appearance will serve some useful purpose. In your
case, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not
necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of
record.
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,
Loder Sh
W. DEAN PF
Executive tor
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03660-02
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. On 11 November 1998, Petitioner made an official written statement to the officer assigned to conduct an investigation into the accident for the purpose of making a line of duty / misconduct determination. Petitioner's NJP or the conduct of his BOI.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 05978-03
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps, dated 19 August 2003, a copy of which is attached. The BOI also substantiated misconduct or moral or professional dereliction as evidenced by the commission of military or civilian offenses, which, if prosecuted under the UCMJ, could be punished by six months or more, or would require proof of specific intent for conviction. The BOI recommended Petitioner's retention.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03434-99
must be at least t3 Regular officers in the grade of O-6 (colonel) as members WOs, the members need not be Paragraph 2d(3) then specifies that at least one member of %nrestricted line officer and that the (BOI) shall be an "one member shall be in the same competitive category as the respondent competitive category does not contain officers in the paygrade of O-6 or above, an O-6 from a closely related designator shall be used . this statute had been repealed by the t#me of your...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 03434-99
With regard to your contention that the BOI was improperly constitute~ because no member was a chief warrant officer in your competitive category of Personnel (MOS 170), the Board noted that subparagraph 2d(1) of SECNAVINST 1920.6k stated that in the cases of regular officers other than limited duty officers and warrant officers, the BOI members must be serving in paygrade 0—6. in your competitive category might have had some insight into the merits of these allegations not shared by the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09343-08
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, and notwithstanding the advisory opinion from Headquarters Marine Corps, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. The BOI recommended that you be separated with a characterization of service of under honorable conditions. As indicated above, you were notified by the Show Cause Authority -on 18 February 2005 that the BOI was not limited...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04591-99
When COL B asked GYSGT M for proof of his assertion that you were involved with his wife, GYSGT M said that LT M had admitted the affair to him and said that the relationship had begun when both of you attended school in Rhode Island. not to contest the findings at that On 19 January 1996 you and your military counsel signed a Memorandum of Agreement in which you agreed disposition of the allegation against me at punishment (NJP) and proceeding, or on appeal of that that it was "expressly...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 04288-06
In the alternative, you requested that your captain date of rank and effective date be adjusted from 1 September 1990 to 1 December 1989, to reflect selection by the FY 1990 Captain Selection Board, vice the FY 1991 Captain Selection Board, as your redesignation as an unrestricted officer came too late for you to be considered in the promotion zone by the earlier promotion board. Applicant was selected for redesignation for unrestricted officer as announced in reference (c) . The FY91 USMC...
USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100287
Types of Documents Submitted/reviewedRelated to Military Service: DD 214:Service/Medical Record:Other Records: Related to Post-Service Period: Employment: Finances: Education/Training: Health/Medical Records: Rehabilitation/Treatment: Criminal Records: Personal Documentation: Community Service: References: Department of VA letter: Other Documentation: Additional Statements:From Applicant: From/To Representation:From/ToCongress member: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD...
USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500419
By unanimous vote, the BOI recommended that that Applicant be separated from the naval service for the reasons listed above and the service be characterized as other than honorable.020211: Applicant’s request denied. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (B and C).The Applicant contends that his discharge was improper because the Board of Inquiry (BOI), which...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10534-06
We recommend that Applicant’s request for relief be denied. The charges were Article 86, Unauthorized Absence, Article 92, Dereliction in the Performance of Duties, and Article 133, Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a Gentleman, ofSubj: BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS (BCNR) APPLICATION IN THE CASE OFthe Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Finally, Applicant claims that the Board’s findings were not supported by the evidence.