Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 02633-05
Original file (02633-05.doc) Auto-classification: Denied



                           DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
                    BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
                                2 NAVY ANNEX
                          WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100


                                                          SMW
                                                          Docket No: 2633-05
                                                          6 October 2005







       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 5
       October 2005. 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 on 13 November 1974 at age 17 with parental
       consent. During the period of 6 August to 5 November 1975 you
       received three nonjudicial punishments (NJP’s) for an unauthorized
       absence (UA) of five days, failure to go to your appointed place of
       duty, and larceny. You were counseled before your first NJP and after
       your second and third NJP’s because of low evaluation marks in
       performance, behavior, appearance, and adaptability; and due to your
       lack of respect for authority, falling asleep on post, tardiness,
       unsatisfactory appearance, and the need for constant supervision.

       On 7 November 1975 the commanding officer initiated administrative
       separation action, and advised you that you were being considered for
       discharge for convenience of the government due to your substandard
       performance and inability to adapt to the military environment. In
       connection with this processing, you acknowledged the recommendation
       for separation action and did not object to the discharge. Although
       not all of the separation documents are on record, it appears the
       separation authority











complied with all regulations in effect during that period and directed
separation with a general discharge. On 5 March 1982, you were so
discharged.

Characterization of service is determined, in part, by military behavior
averages computed from marks assigned on a periodic basis. Your final
military behavior average was 2.2. An average of 3.0 in behavior was
required for a fully honorable characterization of service.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully
weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and the
contention that you thought the discharge would be automatically upgraded
after six months. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors and
contention were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your
discharge given your misconduct and final military behavior average.
Finally, there is no provision in law or regulations that allows f or
recharacterization due solely to the passage of time. Therefore, the Board
concluded that the discharge was proper as issued and no change is
warranted.

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,

















                                      2

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 02637-05

    Original file (02637-05.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your repetitive misconduct and your failure to attain the required average in military behavior. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Thu Feb 01 13_04_27 CST 2001

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 September 1999. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Thu Feb 01 11_59_57 CST 2001

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 September 1999. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 06297-00

    Original file (06297-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel for the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 February 2001. The Board concluded that the foregoing factors and contention were insufficient to warrant recharacteri- zation of your discharge given your record of three NJPs and special court-martial conviction, and your failure to achieve the required averages in military behavior and overall traits. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05521-07

    Original file (05521-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 6 November 1975, the separation authority approved the discharge recommendation and directed discharge by reason of convenience of the government due to unsuitability and characterization of service to be determined by your service record. Nevertheless, the Board found that these...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07893-02

    Original file (07893-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 April 2003. 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. Subsequently, the discharge authority approved this recommendation your commanding officer was directed to issue you a general discharge by reason...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00159-99

    Original file (00159-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    in your record. Regulations required the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code to individuals discharged command due to substandard performance or by reason of inability to adapt to military service." The Board noted that you have applied for the Navy The Board also noted that the commanding and that your contention that You contend that you NJPs in only 16 months of service.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03387-07

    Original file (03387-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.On 27 February 1975, you reenlisted in the Marine Corps at age 28 after a prior period of honorable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03387-07

    Original file (03387-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.On 27 February 1975, you reenlisted in the Marine Corps at age 28 after a prior period of honorable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00352-01

    Original file (00352-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel for the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 April 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. the Naval Discharge Review Board denied the Board carefully weighed The Board concluded that the and the fact that it been more than Counsel contends that while it...