DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
EGA
Docket No: 3735-14
2 April 2015
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.
Although your application was not filed in a timely manner, the
Board found it in the interest of justice to waive the statute
of limitations and consider your application on its merits. A
three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
‘sitting in executive session, considered your application on
20 March 2015. 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 and began a period of active
duty on 26 September 1994. You served without disciplinary
incident until 10 July 1996, when you received nonjudicial
punishment (NJP) for unauthorized absence, willfully disobeying
an order, and two specifications of dereliction of duty.
°On 10 October 1996, you received NUP for dereliction of duty,
false official statement, and sale of government property.
On 20 March 1997, you received a third NUJP for wrongful
appropriation and conduct bringing discredit upon the armed
forces. As a result, you were recommended for an administrative
separation by reason of misconduct. On 6 June 1997, you were
discharged with an other than honorable characterization of
service.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your desire to upgrade your character of service and your mental
illness assertion. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these
factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case,
given the seriousness of your repeated misconduct. Finally,
there is no evidence in the record, and you provided none, to
Support your assertions. 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.
Sincerely,
ROBERT J. O'NEILL
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR517 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 January 2015. 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. Additionally, you were counseled and warned after your first NJP, that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR517 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 January 2015. Despite stating that you were dealing with PTSD while on active duty, the Board determined it insufficient to warrant relief since there is no evidence in the record to support your assertion of PTSD. 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 | NR646 14
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. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in your 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 | NR7087 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 June 2015. 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 regard to your assertions, the Board determined that your allegations of harassment and discrimination do not excuse your misconduct or failure...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR1168 14_Redacted
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 7015S, COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 TAT LAL Docket No: 1168-14 27 February 2015 D m ar 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. fy Although your application was not filed in a timely manner, the Board found it in the es of justice to waive the statute of limitations and consider your Ba ean on...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR767 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 January 2015. “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 | CY2001 | 01888-01
On 14 November 1994 you and were ordered to The record reflects that on 26 June 1995 you were advised that you did not meet the Navy's weight and body fat standards and would be enrolled in the command's remedial physical conditioning program until the next official physical readiness test (PRT). On 3 December 1997 the commanding officer directed a general discharge by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. In addition to In that On 21 December 2000 the Naval...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6460 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 April 2015. 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 material...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4251 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 April 2015. 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 | CY2014 | NR3901 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 April 2015. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in your 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.