DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TOR
Docket No: 10213-10
29 June 2011
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 28 June 2011. 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 reenlisted in the Marine Corps on 7 September 1983 after
nearly three years of prior honorable service. You continued to
serve without disciplinary incident until 11 October 1984, when
you received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for two periods of
absence from your appointed place of duty. Subsequently, on 13
December 1984, you received NJP for four periods of absence from
your appointed place of duty. ,
On 24 January and again on 21 February 1985 you received NUP for
six periods of absence from your appointed place of duty.
Shortly thereafter, on 25 February 1985, you were notified of
pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct
due to a pattern of. misconduct. At that time you waived your
right to consult with legal counsel and to present your case to
an administrative discharge board (ADB). On 27 February 1985
your commanding officer recommended discharge under other than
honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of
misconduct. The discharge authority approved this recommendation
and directed separation under other than honorable conditions by
reason of misconduct and on 22 March 1985 you were so discharged.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your period of prior satisfactory service and desire to upgrade
your discharge. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors
were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your
discharge because of your repetitive misconduct which resulted in
four NUPs. Further, you were given an opportunity to defend your
actions, but waived your procedural right to present your case to
van ADB. Accordingly, your application has been denied.
. s
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,
Duars
W. DEAN
eesantiwe tor
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10259-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval’ Records, sitting in executive session, considered ‘your application on 6 July 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. During this period you also admitted to using marijuana on two occasions, but stated that you would not use any drugs while serving in the Navy.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03030-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 January 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. After waiving your procedural rights to legal counsel and an administrative discharge board (ADB), your commanding officer recommended discharge...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02229-09
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 April 1985 the discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed your commanding officer to issue you an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct, and on 30 April 1985, you were so discharged. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02392-09
RK three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 February 2010. Documentary material congidered 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 1988 you received NUP for two periods of UA totalling two days, failure to obey a lawful order, and four periods of absence from...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 02832-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 February 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 | CY2008 | 06412-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 May 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. 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 | 03514-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 January 2012. Additionally, you were counseled and warned after your first 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 material error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02177-08
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 | CY2010 | 10278-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 July 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 | CY2009 | 00260-09
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 April 1986, 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.