DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BUG
Docket No: 8559-08
22 May 2009
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 21 May 2009. 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 and health records, applicable
statutes, regulations and policies. *
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. The Board found that you entered active
duty in the Navy for three years on August 1972. You entered an
unauthorized absence (UA) status on 29 December 1972, which
ended on 6 January 1973. You again went UA from 6 to
27 February 1973. On 28 February 1973, you voluntarily accepted
a general discharge under an early separation program, and were
assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code. On 9 March 1973, you
received a summary court-martial for six specifications of UA.
You received your general discharge under an early release
program on 5 April 1973, and were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment
code.
Characterization of service is based in part on military trait
marks assigned on a periodic basis. Your military trait average
was 2.8. A military trait average of 3.0 was needed for a fully
honorable characterization of service.
The Board, in its review of your entire record, carefully
considered all potential mitigation, such as your youth and
understanding that you were going to receive an honorable
discharge. However, the Board concluded that these factors were
not sufficient to warrant recharacterizing your general
discharge because of your repetitive misconduct, short term of
service, and low military trait average. In view of the above,
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,
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08212-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 February 2001. 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. discharge, and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00613-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 September 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the @%iSstence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10931-09
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. However, the Board concluded that your discharge and reenlistment code should not be changed because of your acts of misconduct and insufficiently high trait mark average. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 07149-98
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. Your conduct and overall trait averages A minimum average mark of 3.0 On 23 February 1977 the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) that a summary court-martial concluded, by a three to two vote, conviction for an unauthorized absence of about 13 hours and the assignment of a 1.0 mark in...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08679-08
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. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05895-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 March 2009. 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 had prior naval service from 1972 to 1987, and received honorable discharges and were recommended for reenlistment.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07653-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 May 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 | CY2008 | 06695-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 March 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10638-08
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. Furthermore, on 25 February 1964, you received another NJP for UA. Consequentiy, 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 | CY2008 | 10761-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your , application on 20 August 2009. 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. On 1 September 1972 and 1 March 1973, _ you received an adverse mark in military behavior.