DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TIR
Docket No: 350-11
21 October 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 18 October 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 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.
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.
vou enlisted in the Marine Corps on 6 July 1985 at age 20 and
served without disciplinary incident until 26 October 1989 when
you received nonjudicial punishment (NTP) for communicating a
threat and assault. The punishment imposed was restriction and
extra duty for 14 days and a $130 forfeiture of pay.
notes, in part, that after you had forced your way into the
private residence of a civilian female, you assaulted her by
striking her several times with a closed fist on her face and
kicking her in the stomach. As a result, the female sustained
contusions, abrasions on her body, and dental damage. It further
notes that you fled the scene and returned to your duty station
where you were subsequently apprehended and charged with assault.
On 19 November 1991 you were convicted by special court-martial
(SpcmM) of assault and sentenced to confinement for 30 days and a
$600 forfeiture of pay.
On 18 March 1992 you received NUP for assault and were awarded
restriction and extra duty for 45 days, a $440 forfeiture of pay,
and reduction to paygrade E-~2. Subsequently, on 9 May 1992, 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
13 May 1992 your commanding officer recommended discharge under
other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a
pattern of misconduct. On 22 July 1992 the discharge authority
approved this recommendation and directed separation under other
than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct, and on 5
August 1992 you were 80 discharged.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth, combat service, and desire to upgrade your discharge.
It also considered the assertion of a post traumatic stress
disorder resulting from your combat service. Nevertheless, the
Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant
recharacterization of your discharge because of your repetitive
misconduct which resulted in two NUPs and a SPCM. Further, you
were given an opportunity to defend your actions, but waived your
procedural right to present your case to an ADB. Finally, there
igs no evidence in the record, and you submitted none, to support
your assertion. Accordingly, your application has been denied.
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,
io Qu
Executive D cher
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12857-09
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 9 November 1994, you received your second NUP for failure to go to your appointed place of duty and were awarded restriction and extra duty for 30 days and a $388 forfeiture of pay, which was suspended for six months. In this regard, the Board determined that a personal...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 11198-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 November 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 26 February 1992 an ADB recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06092-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 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 | CY2011 | 00460-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 October 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05284-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, Sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 April 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 | CY2010 | 03627-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 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 | CY2010 | 11357-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 August 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 | CY2011 | 02604-11
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 | 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 | 04210-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 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...