DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 .
TOR
Docket No: 8788-08
14 July 2009
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
late husband’s naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title
10, 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 7 July 2009. The names and votes of the members
of the panel will be furnished upon request. 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 husband’s 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.
Your husband enlisted in the Naval Reserve on 30 January 1978 at
age 19 and began a period of active duty on 27 February 1978. He
served for nine months without disciplinary incident, but on 9
October 1978, he received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for
failure to obey a lawful order and disorderly conduct. A year
later, on 19 October 1979, he received NUP for larceny of
government property, specifically, 26 padlocks.
On 27 February and again on 23 May 1380 your husband received two
more NUPs for disobedience, absence from his appointed place of
duty, destruction of government property, and disorderly conduct.
Subsequently, your husband was administratively processed for
separation due to his substandard personal behavior which
reflected discredit upon the service or adversely affected his
performance of duties. Although he was recommended for an other
than honorable discharge, the discharge authority directed
separation under honorable conditions. On 4 August 1980, while
serving in paygrade E-1, your husband was issued a general
discharge.
The Board, in its review of your late husband's entire record and
your application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating
factors, such as his youth, the passage of time, and your desire
to upgrade his discharge. Nevertheless, the Board found the
evidence and materials submitted were not sufficient to warrant
recharacterization of his discharge because of the seriousness of
his repetitive misconduct which resulted in four NdPs.
Accordingly, your application has been denied.
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 ei
Executive D oO
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01664-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 October 2009. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your late husband's naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06704-08
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your late husband's naval record and 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01628-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 November 2009. your application, together with all Material submitted in support thereof, your late husband’s naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your late husband's discharge because of the seriousness of his misconduct and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04389-09
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all Material submitted in support thereof, your late husband’s naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. About six months later, on 8 January 1969, he received NUP for a nine day period of UA. 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03809-08
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. Based on verification of your date of discharge by the Navy Personnel Command (Pers-312D1), on 5 July 1992, you were so discharged. 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 | CY2009 | 00618-09
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your late husband's naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Subsequently, upon his return, on 19 February 1970, he submitted a request for an administrative discharge in order to avoid trial by another court-martial for the additional periods of UA. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04096-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 March 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 existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01422-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 October 2010. On 6 November 1980 the DD was mitigated to a bad conduct discharge (BCD) and the confinement was reduced to three years. 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02317-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 February 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. You served without disciplinary infraction until 5 March 1979, when you began a period of unauthorized absence (UA) that was not terminated...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05252-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 April 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...