Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10658-10
Original file (10658-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX REC

WASHINGTON DG 203705100 Docket No: 10658-10
8 August 2011

 

cation for correction of your
sions of title 10 of the United

 

BR three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 3 August 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 and began active duty on

17 October 1974. On 4 October 1976, you were convicted by a
special court-martial (SPCM) of assaulting a fellow Marine,
failure to go to your appointed place of duty, and sleeping on
post. You were sentenced to reduction in pay grade, and
confinement at hard labor for 75 days. On 29 September 1978, you
received nonjudicial punishment (NIP) for being in an
unauthorized absence (UA) status on two occasions, which rotaled
21 days. On 20 October 1978, you received NIP for being UA for
three days. On 19 January 1979, you received NJP for being UA
For ten days. On 28 March 1979, you were convicted by a second
spcm of being absent from your appointed place of duty, being UA
for 16 days, disobeying a lawful order, failure to obey a lawful
order by driving without a valid driver's license and insurance,

- possessing an unauthorized decal for your vehicle, and not having
a regulation haircut. You were sentenced to forfeitures of $300,
reduction in pay grade, and confinement at hard labor for 75
days. On 19 July 1979, you received NUP for being UA on two
occasions, totaling three days. On 23 March 1980, you received a
fifth NIP for being disrespectful toward a commissioned officer.
On 11 March 1982, administrative separation action was initiated
by reason of misconduct. You waived your rights to consult
counsel, submit a statement or have your case heard by an
administrative discharge board (ADB). Your commanding officer
forwarded his recommendation that you be discharged under other
than honorable (OTH) conditions by reason of misconduct. Your
record is incomplete, however, it appears that you were
discharged with an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct shortly
after 12 March 1982. At that time you were assigned an RE-4
reenlistment code. .

The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, conduct,
and overall record of service. Nevertheless, the Board found
that these factors were not sufficient to warrant changing the
characterization of your discharge, given your record of five
NJP’s, and two convictions by SPCM’s of misconduct. The Board
noted that you waived your right to an ADB, your best opportunity
for retention or a better characterization of service. You are
advised that an RE-4 reenlistment code is required when an
individual is discharged for misconduct and.is not recommended
for retention. Accordingly, your application has been denied.
The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished
upon request.

Tt is noted, that you may request a copy of your Certificate of
Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) from the
Marine Corps Headquarters, if you so desire.

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,

Lo Meen!

W. DEAN PFET
Executive Ditec

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00949-10

    Original file (00949-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 October 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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your NUP and...

  • 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 | 00082-11

    Original file (00082-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 September 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. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge, given your record of two...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05791-10

    Original file (05791-10.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. 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 | CY2010 | 06643-10

    Original file (06643-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 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. On 2 February 1984, you were discharged and received an OTH characterization of service by reason of your misconduct.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08019-08

    Original file (08019-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 June 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 | CY2013 | NR2441-13

    Original file (NR2441-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your ; application on 25 February 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 any change in your discharge given your five NUP‘s, one of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03331-11

    Original file (03331-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 January 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. Your offenses were two specifications of disobedience, failure to obey a lawful order, two periods of UA totalling two days, assault, and two...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00214-11

    Original file (00214-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your , application on 13 October 2011. On 13 December 1961, you received NUP for three incidents of failure to go to your appointed place of duty. - 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 | NR8164 13

    Original file (NR8164 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 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...