DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
MTN
Docket No: 6913-14
4 August 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.
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 14 July 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 Navy and began a period of active duty on
16 December 2008. On 10 June 2011, you received a nonjudicial
punishment (NJP) for willfully disobeying a superior commissioned
officer. Subsequently, administrative discharge action was
initiated by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious
offense. You elected to consult with legal counsel and waived your
right to an administrative discharge board. The commanding officer
recommended that you be discharged with a general under honorable
conditions discharge.
The separation authority approved the recommendation and directed
discharge by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious
offense. You were so discharged on 22 July 2011.
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 and change the narrative reason
for separation. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors
were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case. Concerning
your assertion that you were discharged due to your dismissed
domestic battery charge in civilian court, there is no indication
in the record that this was the case; you were discharged for
willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer’s military
protective order to stay away from your spouse. So the fact that
your civilian domestic battery case was ultimately dismissed has no
bearing on your separation or characterization of service.
Therefore, the Board determined you were properly processed under
the MILPERSMAN and not punished for the same offense twice, as you
allege. Accordingly, your application has been denied.
Further, regarding your request for a personal appearance, be
advised that Board regulations state that personal appearances
before the Board are not granted as a right, but only when the
Board determines that such an appearance will serve some useful
purpose. In your case, the Board determined that a personal
appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the
evidence of record.
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 within one year from the date of the Board’s decision.
New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board
prior to making its decision in your case. 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.
RE a. ‘NEILL
Executive Director
NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301589
On 10 June 2011, the Applicant’s command notified him of administrative separation processing for “Separation by reason of misconduct - commission of a serious offense as evidenced by the Military Protective Order of 13 May 2011 and Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office report of 24 May 2011.” The NDRB determined he was properly notified of administrative separation processing for Misconduct (Serious Offense) based upon his finding of guilt at NJP on 10 June 2011 for violating UCMJ Article 90 based...
USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-01205
MD02-01205 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020823, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed. The Board will determine which reason for discharge should have been assigned based upon the facts and circumstances before the Board, including the service regulations governing the reasons for discharge at that time, to determine whether relief is warranted. Applicant was...
USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500326
Based on the offense(s) committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s date of discharge. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.
NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1500373
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall remain UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS and the narrative reason for separation shall remain MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE). ” Additional Reviews : After a...
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600592
ND06-00592 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20060330. The Applicant requests that the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. ]050520: Applicant from unauthorized absence on 050520 (3 days).
USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600755
Equity: Quality of service – The Applicant contends that his discharge should be upgraded to truly reflect his nearly 15 years of exemplary Marine Corps service. The Applicant’s Commanding Officer recommended that the Applicant receive a General Under Honorable Conditions characterization and the GCMCA agreed with that recommendation. The evidence of record did not show that the Applicant was either not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.
USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1501206
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s date of discharge. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04854-10
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 go discharged on 27 March 2003. 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 | CY2011 | 00148-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your , application on 28 September 2011. 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 14 August 1989, the ADB found that you committed misconduct and recommended that you be separated with an OTH discharge.
USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1200468
Therefore, the NDRB determined that the characterization of service is accurate and relief is not warranted based on issues of propriety.The NDRB requested and received the Applicant’s service medical record and VA medical treatment records. Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, service record entries, and the discharge process, the NDRB determined that Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall but the...