DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
SIN
Docket No: 08508-07
28 August 2008
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 26 August 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.
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 on 1 March 1961 at age 17. On
18 September and 9 October 1964, you received nonjudicial
punishment (NUP) for two days of unauthorized absence (UA). On
29 January 1965, you were convicted by a special court-martial
(SPCM) of two specifications of UA totaling 97 days and breaking
restriction. On 8 April 1965, you were convicted by a second
SPCM of escaping from confinement. You remained on active duty
until 16 March 1966 when you were released at the expiration of
your enlistment and transferred to the Marine Corps Reserve. On
3 December 1967, you received a general discharge at the
completion of your military obligation based on your conduct and
proficiency marks.
Characterization of service is based in part on conduct and
proficiency averages computed from marks assigned on a periodic
basis. Your conduct average was 3.6. At the time of your
service, a conduct average of 4.0 was required for a fully
honorable characterization of service.
The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and
overall record of service. Nevertheless, the Board concluded
these factors were not sufficient to warrant upgrading your
discharge given the two NJP’s, two convictions by SPCM, and
especially your failure to attain the required average in
conduct. 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,
\S ’
aa R
Executive or
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02411-09
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 concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant upgrading your discharge given the six NJP’s, conviction by SCM and SPCM, two civil convictions, and your failure to attain the required average in conduct. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07446-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 April 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 | CY2007 | 11227-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 November 2008. 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. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 11334-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 November 2008. 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. An average of 4.0 in conduct was required at the time of your release from active duty for a fully honorable characterization of service.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 00116-07
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 on 28 February 1959 at age 19. Nevertheless, the Board concluded...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01433-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 October 2010. 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 concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of your repetitive...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03539-01
You were again advanced to PFC and On 9 June 1969 you were The DD Form 214 shows that you had three periods of lost time, UA from 10 February to 10 March 1967 and two periods of confinement from 11 April to 12 June and 22 October to 21 December 1967. for entitlement to the Good Conduct Medal commenced on 26 October 1967, the day after your summary court-martial conviction. The DD Form 214 also indicates that eligibility Regulations provided that individuals discharged for the convenience of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03372-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 February 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 04653-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 February 2009. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, togethér with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. On 10 January 1966, your commanding officer initiated administrative separation by reason of unsuitability, and recommended a general...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10266-08
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 enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 29 December 1965 at age 17. 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.