Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04139-11
Original file (04139-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

 

TJR
Docket No: 4139-11
10 February 2012

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 7 February 2012. 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 17 August 2000 after four
years of prior service. You continued to serve without
disciplinary infraction until 2 February 2001, when you were
counselled regarding physically handling students. About three
months later, on 29 May 2001, you received nonjudicial punishment
(NJP) for assault on a camp guard sentry. Shortly thereafter,
during the period from 6 to 21 September 2001, you participated
in an intensive outpatient alcohol treatment program in which you
were discharged after completing with minimal success. You were

diagnosed with alcohol dependency and recommended for continued
treatment.

On 11 January 2002 you were convicted by summary court-martial
(SCM) of absence from your appointed place of duty, three
specifications of disrespect, two specifications of disobedience,
four specifications of failure to obey a lawful order,
fraternizing, using provoking words, drunk and disorderly
conduct, and assault. You were sentenced to a $736 forfeiture of
pay, reduction to paygrade E-1, and confinement for 30 days.
On 5 March 2002 you were notified of pending administrative
separation action by reason of misconduct due to commission of a
serious offense and alcohol rehabilitation failure. After
consulting with legal counsel you waived your right to present
your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB). On 14
April 2002 your commanding officer recommended discharge under
other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to
commission of a serious offense and alcohol rehabilitation
failure. Subsequently, the discharge authority approved this
recommendation and directed separation under other than honorable
conditions by reason of misconduct and on 13 May 2002 you were so
discharged.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your prior satisfactory service and desire to upgrade your
discharge. It also considered your assertion of unjust treatment
and unjust persecution. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these
factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your
discharge because of the seriousness of your repetitive
misconduct. Further, you were given an opportunity to defend
your actions, but waived your procedural right to present your
case to an ADB. Finally, there is no evidence in the record, and
you submitted none, to support your assertions. 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,

Executive

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08000-08

    Original file (08000-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 22 November 2005 an ADB recommended discharge under honorable conditions by reason of convenience of the government due to alcohol rehabilitation failure. On 2 February 2006 you were so discharged and assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00396-11

    Original file (00396-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 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. After waiving your procedural right to consult with legal counsel and to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB}, on 13...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07515-00

    Original file (07515-00.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 February 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. general discharge by reason of misconduct due to commission of a An ADB recommended you be issued a After consulting with legal However, the discharge authority...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Thu Sep 21 09_17_36 CDT 2000

    Further, other individuals stated that you did not notify the command until the third duty day after the arrest. You contend that the arrest was reported on the first day back to work; you were directed not to have any contact with anyone on board the submarine, and therefore could not obtain any witnesses; the executive officer threatened further adverse action if you appealed the NJP; and you were told that you would receive additional alcohol rehabilitation prior to discharge. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 01582 12

    Original file (01582 12.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 December 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 00142-03

    Original file (00142-03.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 October 2003. On 16 October 1980 an ADB recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct. 2 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 | CY2003 | 06784-03

    Original file (06784-03.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.You reenlisted in the Navy for four years on 16 July 1994 as a petty officer fir. However, on 28...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10742-09

    Original file (10742-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 August 2010. However, the record does not reflect the disciplinary action taken, if any, for this period of UA. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 August 2010.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07928-09

    Original file (07928-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Ss sitting in executive session, considered your on on 11 May 2010. On 12 September 1990, the ADB met and unanimously found that you committed a serious offense, failed alcohol rehabilitation, and recommended that you be separated with a general discharge. 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 | CY2002 | 00580-02

    Original file (00580-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 May 2002. The Board found that you reenlisted in the Navy on 23 February 1988 for three years. The Board could find no error or injustice in your assigned reenlistment code since you were treated no differently than others discharged under similar circumstances.