DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
JDR
Docket No: 7087-14
5 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 ina 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
23 June 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, began a period of active duty
on 20 September 1994, and served without disciplinary incident
for about two years. However, on 4 December 1996, you were
formally counseled and advised of your failure to go to your
appointed place of duty and that failure to take corrective
action may result in administrative separation or limitation on
further service. On 17 December 1996, you received nonjudicial
punishment (NJP) for failing to go to your appointed place of
duty and disobeying an order. On 25 April 1997, you received
NJP for failing to go to your appointed place of duty and
disobeying an order or regulation. You received NUP again on
2 October 1997 for failure to obey an order or regulation and
driving while intoxicated. On 15 January 1998 you received your
fourth NUP for failure to obey an order or regulation.
Subsequent to the foregoing misconduct, you were notified of
pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct
due to a pattern of misconduct. After consulting with legal
counsel, you waived your right to present your case to an
administrative discharge board (ADB). Your case was forwarded,
recommending discharge under other than honorable (OTH)
conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of
misconduct. The separation authority approved the
recommendation and directed an OTH discharge. On 3 April 1998,
you were so discharged.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your record of service and desire to upgrade your discharge.
The Board also considered your assertion that your discharge was
unjust due to constant harassment and discrimination.
Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not
sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given
the seriousness of your repeated misconduct which resulted in
four NUPs even after you had been counseled and advised that
failure to take corrective action may result in administrative
separation. In regard to your assertions, the Board determined
that your allegations of harassment and discrimination do not
excuse your misconduct or failure to adhere to Marine Corps
regulations and the command’s decision to take disciplinary
action and administrative separation was warranted. Further,
the Board noted that the record shows that you were given an
opportunity to defend yourself, and perhaps receive a better
characterization of service, but waived your procedural right to
present your case to an ADB. 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 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.
Sincerely,
OBERT J. O’‘NEILL
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6666 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 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. 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 | NR7771 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 July 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 your case, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record.
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 | CY2011 | 03514-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 January 2012. Additionally, you were counseled and warned after your first NUP, that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action. 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 | CY2011 | 00210-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 October 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. 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 | CY2008 | 08042-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 June 2009. 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 | NR2447 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 May 2014. You exercised your procedural right to have your case considered by an administrative discharge board (ADB). 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 | 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 | CY2009 | 01892-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 November 2009. 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 25 August 1984, the separation authority directed an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6067 14
A three- member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...