DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
				          BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
 						2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
											LCC:ddj
Docket No: 9357-02
											19 February 2003

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 19 February 2003. 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 CMC memorandum 1001 RAM of 4 February 2003, 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
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
	QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103	IN REPLY REFER TO:
	1001
	RAM
	FEB 04 2003

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

Subj:

1.	After review of the BCNR application in the case of the following comments are provided.

2. On 20 March 2002, XXXXX was denied career designation status on the Active Reserve Program and would subsequently be released from active duty upon reaching his end of active service (EAS) date.

3.	On 20 July 2002, Headquarters Marine Corps received a request for reenlistment and if denied, a request for determination of separations pay.

4.	After review of his record, the following administrative remarks (pg 11 entries) were recorded:

a.	10 Jan 01: Counseled for pleading guilty to DUI
b.	24 Mar 01: Counseled for being held in the Hands of Civil Authorities for 4 days and for pleading guilty of abuse of spouse/person whom cohabitated with on 11 April
                               01.
c.	27 Apr 01: Counseled for failing to obey a lawful order given to you on 23 Mar 2001, in that SNI4 tried to make contact with after being ordered not to make any contact.
d.	2 Jun 01: Received non-judicial punishment for being UA for approximately 4 days.
e.	5 Oct 01: Counseled on failure to pay child support.
f.	16 Oct 01: Counseled for the numerous incidents that have brought discredit to yourself and the U.S. Marine Corps.

5.	As a result of these administrative remarks and after reviewing Appendix C MCO P1040.31H (Enlisted Career Planning and Retention Manual), it was determined on 30 July 2002 that  XXXX
    rated half separations pay.

6.	Within Appendix C of MCO P1040.31H, failed to maintain a performance record during his current enlistment that demonstrated the prestige and quality standards of the Marine Corps. Specifically his incidents that reflected discredit on the Marine Corps and his incident of personal irresponsibility to include abuse of a family member, or in this case abuse of a person whom he cohabitated with.

7.	After review of the Superior Court of California document that set aside XXXX conviction, it is still the opinion of this Division that he only rate half separations pay. This opinion is based on paragraphs 3 and 4 of the document, which state that his conviction remains a part of the court file and were to be prosecuted for any subsequent offense, the conviction in this current case may be pleaded and proved as a prior conviction. Also, even with the removal of his NJP and conviction of this one incident, XXXX overall record still fails to meet the high standards set within Appendix C of MCO P1040.31H.

							W. DEAN PFEIFFER