8OARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5 00

							CRS
										Docket No: 957-07 
										3 April 2008

Dear 

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.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 April 2008. 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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated 8 March 2007, a copy of which is attached.

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. In this connection the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion. 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 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.

								Sincerely,

W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director

Enclosure
				DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3000 MARINE CORPS PENTAGON
				       WASHINGTON, DC 20350-3000

				IN REPLY REFER TO:
										1070
											JAM3

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:	APPLICATION FOR CORRECTION IN THE CASE OF

Ref: (a) SECNAVINST 5420.193

1.We are asked to provide an opinion on thereinafter “Applicant”)
application, docket 00957-07, to request the removal of his 
nonjudicial punishment (NJP) he received on 29 October 1993.

2.	Opinion. For the reasons noted below, we recommend that the Board deny Applicant’s requested relief.

3.	Background

a.	In 1993, Applicant was attached to Camp Foster, Okinawa, Japan. Applicant was arrested by the military police for stealing a bicycle from the chow hall.

b.	On 29 October 1993, Applicant accepted NJP for larceny in violation of Article 121, of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

4.	Analysis

a.	First, we note that the Board should reject the application because it is untimely. In accordance with the reference, an application for correction of a record must be filed within three years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice unless the Board excuses the untimely filing in the interest of justice. The Applicant filed this application on 17 January 2007, 13 years after his NJP of 29 October 1993. The Applicant offers no justification for this untimely application for relief and he has failed to make any showing that the interests of justice warrant its untimely consideration.

b.	Nonjudicial punishment is an administrative proceeding, not a criminal trial. Therefore, the formal rules of evidence do not apply. The standard of proof at NJP is “by preponderance of the evidence” rather than “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Applicant’s Commanding Officer had ample evidence to impose NJP
and was in the best position to determine the facts surrounding the case. Applicant has failed to offer sufficient justification to second guess the commander now.

c.	In order to justify correction of a military or naval record, the Applicant bears the burden to show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must other wise satisfactorily appear, that the alleged entry or omission in the record was in error or unjust. Applicant has not provided any evidence to support that he was denied his procedural rights or that he did not engage in any illegal activities.

5. Conclusion. Accordingly, we recommend that Applicant’s request for relief be denied.

6. Please contact the Military Law Branch at (703) 614-4250, if you require additional information.

	Head, Military Law Branch
Judge Advocate Division
	By direction of the
	Commandant of the Marine Corps