Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR12849 14
Original file (NR12849 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
ARLINGTON VA 22204-2490

 

TOE
Docket Nec 12849-14
5856-12
17 December 2014
aoplication for correcti
provisions of Title 10,

   

    
   

BR three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 16 December 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 consid d
the Board consisted of your application, together with
material pbmitted in support thereof, your naval recor
appiicab statutes, regulations, and policies In add

Board considered the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB
jocumenta review of 14 February 2012 and its previous

comments
documents, copies

syps, began a period of active duty

or about nine months without

You enlisted in the Marine C
uly 2000, and served

Ey

a0
oS
ar
oO

fc
Ie

      
 
 
  

isciplinary incident. However, during the period from 27 March
2001 to 6 December 2002, you were convicted by civil authorities
of speeding and received nonjudicial punishment (NUP } three
occasions for wrongful possession of illegal fireworks

to go to your appointed place of duty, C

failure to obey a lawful order, and making

statement

On 4 May 2004 yo
failure to go to

¥

HQ
wv Oo W
5

rnment prop

ul order, and

Sy
Fh
istratively processed for s

ati parati
pattern of misconduct, 4
a

nl

y,

a
eS

©
FO

5
ao

gt
Gb
om hy

in

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, timeline of events, and
character rererence letters. it ale wuuBiberea your assexricn
that your poor decisions were due to side effects from medicines.
"Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not
sufficient to warrant relief in your case because of the
seriousness of your misconduct in both the military and civilian
communities. Finally, there is no evidence in the record to
support your assertion. 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
within one year from the date of the Board’s decision. 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.

 

 

Enclosures

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR429 14

    Original file (NR429 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 November 2014. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with ali material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. directed your commanding officer to issue you an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct, and on 17 August 2009, you were so discharged.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4394 14

    Original file (NR4394 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 October 2014. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6391 14

    Original file (NR6391 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 98 October 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. As a result of this period of UA totalling 478 days, on 14 July 1982, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable discharge in...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4297 13

    Original file (NR4297 13.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. You received NJP on three additional occasions for failure to go to your appointed place of duty and two instances of UA from your unit for a period totaling four days. oo The Board also noted that you should contact Headquarters, United States Marine Corps, Code MMSB, 3280 Russell Road,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3342-13

    Original file (NR3342-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    1980, you made a written request for an other _ than honorable (OTH) discharge to-avoid trial by court-martial for three instances of UA from your unit for a period totaling 30 days, failure to go to you appointed place of duty, . ‘The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as recharacterization of your. when your request for.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR0221-13

    Original file (NR0221-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 March 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. Based on the information currently contained in your record it appears that you submitted a written request for an other than honorable - (OTH)...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR764 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR764 14_Redacted.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Although your application was not filed in a time Board found it in the interest of justice to wai limitations and consider your application on its three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 January 2015. After consulting with legal counsel, you lected to present your case to an administrative discharge board — (0 94...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4079-13

    Original file (NR4079-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three- member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on’19 March 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. You were notified of pending administrative discharge processing due to your frequent acts of misconduct.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5583 14

    Original file (NR5583 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    B three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 December 2014. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case. Consequently, when applying fora correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3007 14

    Original file (NR3007 14.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 November 2014. 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...