DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 8S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
TUR
Docket No: 12563-11
4 October 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 3 October 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 enlisted in the Marine Corps on 30 September 1971 at age 19
and immediately began a period of active duty. The following
month, on 18 October 1971, you received nonjudicial punishment
(NIP) for failure to obey a lawful order. Shortly thereafter, on
14 February and again on 20 April 1972, you received NUP for
disobedience, drunk and disorderly conduct, absence from your
appointed place of duty, and failure to go to your appointed
place of duty.
It appears that in January 1973 you were referred to a medical
board for an evaluation to determine your fitness for duty,
diagnosed with a medical condition that existed prior to your
enlistment, specifically, psuedofolliculitis, a condition that
was nonresponsive to treatment. At that time you were also
recommended for an administrative separation. However, during
the period from 11 July to 6 September 1973, you received three
more NUPs for a one day period of unauthorized absence (UA), two
periods of absence from your appointed place of duty, using
provoking words, disobedience, and failure to obey a lawful
order. You were also in a UA status for a three day period from
27 to 30 September 1973, but the record does not reflect the
disciplinary action taken, if any, for this misconduct.
Subsequently, you were processed for an administrative separation
by reason of convenience of the government due to your diagnosed
medical condition which was nonresponsive to treatment. On 4
March 1974 the discharge authority directed discharge under
honorable conditions. However, prior to being separated, you
received your seventh NJP on 4 April 1974 for wrongful
appropriation of a 1974 Pinto automobile valued at $3,000 anda
10 day period of UA. Nonetheless, on 31 May 1974, you were
issued a general discharge by reason of convenience of the
government.
Character of service is based, in part, on conduct and
proficiency averages which are computed from marks assigned
during periodic evaluations. Your conduct average was 3.6. An
average of 4.0 in conduct was required at the time of your
separation for a fully honorable characterization of service.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth and desire to upgrade the characterization of your
general discharge. It also considered your assertions that you
received a Good Conduct Medal and that there is discriminating
remarks reflected on your Certificate of Release or Discharge
from Active Duty (DD Form 214). Nevertheless, the Board
concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant
recharacterization of your discharge because of the seriousness
of your repetitive and frequent misconduct which resulted in
seven NJPs, and since your conduct average was insufficiently
high to warrant a fully honorable characterization of service.
Further, the notation on your DD Form 214 does not show that you
received a Good Conduct Medal, but only sets forth the starting
date for the next period of the award. Finally, Marines with an
extensive record of misconduct, such as yours, normally receive
discharges under other than honorable conditions. With that
being said, the Board concluded that you were fortunate to have
received a general characterization of service. 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,
\ ‘Pez E
Executive Die
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 01496 12
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 accordance with the foregoing, on 17 November 1974, upon completion of your required active service, you received a general discharge under honorable conditions. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09263-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 April 2009. On 22 March 1973 you were convicted by a special court-martial of 7 days of UA, disobedience of a lawful order and stealing $31 from another Marine. 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 | CY2008 | 03508-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 February 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03076-11
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 and contention were not sufficient to warrant a change in your characterization of service given your five NUJP’s, two of which involved the wrongful possession of marijuana, the diagnoses of a character and behavior disorder, and your...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06373-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 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 | CY2008 | 07401-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 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 | CY2008 | 07567-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 June 2009. Furthermore, disciplinary action and an administrative separation are appropriate for alcohol related offenses. 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 | 06291-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 February 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The Board, in its review of your record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and immaturity, limited education, and low test The Board also considered your contention...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06912-08
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 December 1976, you received a general discharge based on your average conduct marks. 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 | CY2007 | 08435-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 August 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. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant any change in your discharge given your record of three NUP’s, one...