DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BAN
Docket No: 10638-08
13 August 2009
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
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 13 August 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 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 31 July 1961, and served without
- disciplinary incident until 10 April 1962, when you were
convicted at a summary court-martial (SCM) for disobeying a
senior petty officer and drunk and disorderly conduct at the
enlisted club. Additionally, on 23 duly 1962, you were convicted
at another SCM for unauthorized absence (UA) and failure to obey
a lawful order. On 17 June 1963, you received a nonjudicial
punishment (NJP) for breaking into your commanding officer’s room
and attempting to steal his .45 caliber pistol.
On 9 July 1963, you were convicted at a special court-martial for
drunk on duty and consuming alcohol while on restriction.
Furthermore, on 25 February 1964, you received another NJP for
UA. You were recommended for separation with a general discharge
due to being unfit for naval service. The separation authority
approved the recommendation and on 14 -July 1964, you received a
general discharge and an RE-4 reenlistment code. Character of
service is based in part on trait marks assigned on a periodic
basis. Your overall trait average was 2.85. You needed a 3.0
overall trait average 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, post service conduct, and the passage of time.
Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not
sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge
because of the seriousness of your misconduct and insufficiently
high overall trait average. Accordingly, your application has
been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel
will be furnished upon request.
Tt 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.
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.
Sincerely,
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3691 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 April 2014. 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 given your seven NUP’s,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11044-06
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 18 Nay 1960 at age 18. You were sentenced to confinement at hard...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02238-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 September 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. You were sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 30 days, to On 3 August 1960 you received nonjudicial a $40 forfeiture of pay, and reduction on 6 May 1960, you were paygrade E-l. On 27 August and again on 8 October...
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 | CY2002 | 07844-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 May 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings Board. Your conduct average was 3.8. 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 | CY2011 | 04061-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 January 2012. 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 | CY2009 | 00907-09
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 your two SCM’s, conviction by SPCM, and failure to attain the required average in cohduct. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02013-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 December 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. 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 | CY2009 | 00740-09
Naval - Records, sitting in executive session, considered your |... application on 28 October 2009. On 13 October 1964, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to unfitness. by the Board... .
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...