DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S$. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
TJR
Docket No: 7980-13
12 September 2014
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 September 2014. 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, reguiations, 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 6 July 1977. You served for about a year and two months
without disciplinary incident, but during the period from 7
September 1978 to 17 July 1979, you received nonjudicial
punishment (NUP) on seven occasions for misbehavior as a
sentinel, three specifications of disrespect, conduct prejudicial
to good order and discipline, wrongful possession of Marijuana,
and a seven day period of unauthorized absence (UA). You were
also counselled on numerous occasions regarding deficiencies in
your performance and conduct.
Subsequently, you were processed for an administrative separation
by reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement of a
discreditable nature with military authorities. After waiving
your procedural rights, on 15 November 1979, your commanding
officer recommended discharge under other than honorable
conditions by reason of misconduct due frequent involvement of a
discreditable nature with military authorities. On 6 February
1980, the discharge authority approved the this recommendation
i
L
and directed separation under other than honorable conditions by
reason of misconduct, and on 26 February 1980, you were 50
discharged.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your desire to upgrade your discharge, brief period of
satisfactory service during which you assert that you were
awarded a Good Conduct Medal, and assertion that you were told
that you would receive a general discharge which would entitle
you to benefits. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors
were not sufficient tto warrant relief in your case because of the
seriousness of your repetitive misconduct which resulted in seven
:NOPs and repeated counselling regarding your substandard
performance. Further, you were given an opportunity to defend
}your actions, bit waived your procedural rights. Finally, there
is no evidence in the record, and you submitted none, to support
your assertion regarding receiving a general discharge.
Accordingly, your application has been denied.
Contrary to your assertion of being awarded a Good Conduct Medal,
be advised that there is no documentation in your record which
supports the premise that you completed a four year term of
service without disciplinary incident/infraction which would
entitle you to such a medal. With that being said, the notation
on your Certificate of Discharge or Release from Active Duty (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.
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.
Sincepely,
ROBERT J. O'NEILL
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 01113-07
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 Navy on 1 December 1977 at age 18 and served without disciplinary incident until 8...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 07289-09
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. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07289-09
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. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6514 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 November 2014.. 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. Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative separation by reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement of a discreditable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05812-00
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 Board. recommended you be issued an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities. 2 Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02971-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 February 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. As a result, on 30 September 1982, the discharge authority directed your commanding officer to hold your separation in abeyance pending...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08151-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 October 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 6 March 1980 the discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed discharge under other than honorable conditions, and on 27 March...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10960-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 October 2003. On 17 August 1981 you received a fourth NJP for two periods of UA totalling four days and were awarded restriction and extra duty for 14 days and a $80 forfeiture of pay. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is existence of probable on the applicant to demonstrate the material error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 00605-05
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 October 2005. 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 | CY2003 | 00142-03
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.