DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
TAL
Docket No: 4827-11
22 February 2012
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the
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 15 February 2012. 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 a period of active
duty on 23 January 17 1987 at age 24. On 3 November 1987, you
received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for wrongful use of
marijuana. On 18 August 1988, you received NJP for willfully
disobeying a lawful order from a superior noncommissioned. On
3 February 1989, you received NJP for willfully disobeying a
lawful order from a superior noncommissioned officer and driving
without a Japanese license. After your first NUP, you were
counseled regarding your misconduct and warned that further
offenses could result in administrative separation. You were
notified of pending administrative discharge processing with an
other than honorable (OTH) discharge due to misconduct (pattern
of misconduct). You waived all of your procedural rights,
including your right to an administrative discharge board (ADB).
On 21 April 1989, you received the OTH discharge for misconduct
due to a pattern of misconduct.
The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and
overall record of service. Nevertheless, the Board found that
these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change in the
characterization of your discharge given the seriousness of your
misconduct that resulted in three NUPs. The Board noted that
after you were counseled and warned that further misconduct
could result in administrative separation, you committed more
offenses. The Board also noted that you waived the right to an
ADB, your best opportunity for retention or a better
characterization of service. 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, 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,
LD Don?
W. DEAN PF
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 00318-12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 September 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. You waived all of your procedural rights, including your right to an administrative discharge board (ADB).
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 00395-12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 September 2012. On 19 October 1992, you received the OTH discharge for misconduct (commission of a serious offense). 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 | CY2011 | 04208 11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Neval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00148-11
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. On 14 August 1989, the ADB found that you committed misconduct and recommended that you be separated with an OTH discharge.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05727-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05741-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 February 2008. On 15 January 1990, you began a UA that ended on 3 February 1990, a period of about 19 days. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge due to the seriousness of your misconduct that continued even after you were counseled regarding deficiencies in your performance and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07886-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge due to the seriousness of your...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06180-09
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 16 November 1987, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct. The discharge authority directed an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 03190-12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 February 2013. 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 | CY2012 | 00923 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 October 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. In this regard, an RE-4 reenlistment code is required when an individual is discharged for misconduct and is not recommended for retention.