Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3601 14
Original file (NR3601 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

 

JRE
Docket No. 3601-74
3 April 2015

 

 

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. The application was
filed in a timely manner.

A three member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 2 April 2045. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative reguiations and procedcres
applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documsniary material considered by the
Roard consisted of vour application, together with all materia! supmitted in support
thereof. vour nava' record and applicable statuies. reaurations anc policies.

After careful ang conscientious consigeratior. of the entire recorc, ine Scarce jounc Inat
the evidence submittec was insufficient te establish the existence O° probanie materia:
error or injustice.

You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 29 January 1998 with six years of prior service in
the Air Force. On 9 August 2007 an administrative discharge board determined that you
had engaged in a pattern of misconduct, but recommended that you pe retained on
active duty. Your commanding officer disagreed and recommended that you be
separated from the Marine Corps with a general discharge. He believed that in view of
your reduction to corporal, which caused you to exceed grade and service limitations,
the revocation of your security clearance, and your long history of disciplinary problems,
your retention on active duty could not be justified. On 14 January 2008 the Assistant
Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs approved-the recommendation
of the Acting Director, Personnel Management Division, Headquarters, U.S. Marine
Corps, that you be discharged by reason of the best interest of the service due to a
pattern of misconduct, with a general discharge. You were So discharged on 29
February 2008. You were assigned a separation program designator code of JFF1,
which indicates you were separated by reason of Secretarial authority.
The fact that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) awarded you service connection
and substantial disability ratings for numerous conditions effective 2 July 2009 was not
considered probative of the existence of error or injustice in your naval record, because
the VA acted without regard to the issue of your fitness for naval service as of the date
of your discharge from the Marine Corps. As you have not demonstrated that you were
unfit by reason of physical disability on that date, and that you should have been
referred for disability evaluation rather than considered for separation by reason of
misconduct, the Board was unable to recommend favorable action on. your request.
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 within one year from the date of the Board’s:
decision. New material evidence is evidence 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,

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR2223 13

    Original file (NR2223 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted is Support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. After careful and conscienticus consideration of the entire record, the Board found that 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 | NR9162 14

    Original file (NR9162 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative C a “ a i regulations ana procedures appilt e Board. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case. 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 | CY2014 | NR12712 14

    Original file (NR12712 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board, in its review of your record and application, which included your counsel’s brief, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade your other than honorable discharge, to be reinstated in the military, and change your narrative reason for separation/separation code and reenlistment code. In this regard, the Board determined that your desires and your counsel’s allegations were not enough to outweigh the significant misconduct you committed. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00378-08

    Original file (00378-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. The VA did not determine that you were insane when you committed the offenses which resulted in your 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 | CY2014 | NR3458 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR3458 14_Redacted.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    a three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, Sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 March 2015. Documentary materia considered by the Board ¢ your application, together with all material submitted in support a : = thereof, your naval Tecora, anda 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2593 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR2593 14_Redacted.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. Documentary material considered by O ed of your application, together with all mater: pport ther naval record, and applicable ions, After 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 and began...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 05729-09

    Original file (05729-09.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. 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 | CY2013 | NR8499 13

    Original file (NR8499 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested removing the fitness report for 14 February to 10 June 2011 and your two rebuttals, each dated 8 June 2011, to the service record page 11 ("Administrative Remarks (1070)") entries dated 25 May and 1 June 2011, respectively. Rh three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 April 2015. Since the Board found insufficient grounds to remove either of your failures of selection for promotion, it had...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07751-07

    Original file (07751-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You were sentenced to be discharged from the Marine Corps with a bad conduct discharge. You were separated from the Marine Corps with a bad conduct discharge on 24 February 1971, upon completion of appellate review. 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 | CY2014 | NR5345 14

    Original file (NR5345 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 TOR Docket No: 5345-14 11 December 2014 Dear 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 8 December 2014. The names and votes of...