DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BAN
Docket No: 03935-11
14 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 14 June 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 covsiseteda 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 March 1988, and
served without disciplinary incident until 18 January 1989, when
you received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for the wrongful use of
a controlled substance (marijuana). Shortly thereafter, you
received the following disciplinary actions: 26 April 1989, you
received NUP for driving under the influence of alcohol for which
you received Level II alcohol and substance abuse rehabilitation
treatment; and on 9 August 1990, you were convicted at a special
court-martial (SPCM) of the use of methamphetamines and
amphetamines, and failure to obey a lawful order. Your sentence
at the SPCM included a bad conduct discharge (BCD). You were
offered alcohol and drug rehabilitation treatment again, but you
refused. After appellate review, on 25 July 1994, you were
separated with a BCD and an RE-4 reentry code.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth and claims that the military judge erred in his
decision, that the government failed to prove your guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt, and the violations of the command urinalysis
procedures. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were
not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge
because of the seriousness of your misconduct. Regarding your
claims, the Board found no evidence in your record to support
them, and you provided no such evidence. 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, #t 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,
Fxecutive Disec
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04668-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 February 2011. 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. On 19 October 1987 you received NUP for a 44 day period of unauthorized absence (UA).
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07353-10
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 17 March 1992, you received the general discharge for alcohol rehabilitation failure. 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 | CY2010 | 02173-10
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 6 May 1992 an ADB recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, and alcohol rehabilitation failure. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 04339-12
A three-member panel of the Board for correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 March 2013. Additionaily, you were counseled and warned 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 | CY2010 | 10654-10
A 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,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00223-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 September 2011. However, the Board found these factors were insufficient to warrant changing your reentry code due to your two NUP’s, and being an alcohol rehabilitation failure. 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 | CY2010 | 05128-10
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. On 23 March 1989, your Case was heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB), which voted three to zero in favor of an other than honorable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05757-10
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. Finally, the Board also noted on 5 June 1987 you were offered the right to request in-patient alcohol rehabilitation treatment from the Veterans Administration Hospital nearest your home, but signed a waiver refusing treatment. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 12222-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your _ application on 4 November 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. Therefore, on 17 July 1930, you were separated from the naval service with a BCD and an RE-4 reenlistment code due to your conviction at the SPCM.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11234-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 August 2011. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...