Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 11464-08
Original file (11464-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

CRS
Docket No: 11464-08
11 January 2010 ©

 

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 6 January 2010. 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 that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice.’ ,

The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy on 1 October 1964.
You were convicted by two special courts-martial for offenses
that included two periods of unauthorized absence, failure to go
to appointed place of duty, failure to obey a lawful order, and
breaking restriction. On 31 August 1965 your commanding officer
recommended your separation based on your statement that you had
‘committed numerous homosexual acts with civilians for
compensation during your enlistment. You received an undesirable
discharge by reason of unfitness due to homosexual acts on 17
September 1965.

The Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors,
such as your youth, overall service, and your belief that your
discharge would be automatically upgraded six months after you
were discharged. The Board concluded that those factors were
insufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge,
given the serious nature of your military offenses. In addition,
there is no provision of law or regulation for the automatic
upgrade of a discharge. 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,

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 05068-09

    Original file (05068-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 May 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, The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy on 30 December 1965. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03195-09

    Original file (03195-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 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. 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 | CY2013 | NR3639 13

    Original file (NR3639 13.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 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. 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 | 04216-07

    Original file (04216-07.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. 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 burden is on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03077-07

    Original file (03077-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 April 2008. your application, thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, 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 material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR576 14

    Original file (NR576 14.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. 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. In your case, the Board found misconduct and aggravating factors.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 00456 12

    Original file (00456 12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 October 2012. On 28 September 1965, you received NJP for being UA for seven days. In this regard, the Board noted that you admitted to participating in homosexual acts under aggravating circumstances by receiving compensation.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08836-09

    Original file (08836-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 June 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 | CY2007 | 05059-07

    Original file (05059-07.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 that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.The Board found that you reenlisted in the Navy on 6 March 1964 after more than three years of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 05654-03

    Original file (05654-03.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.Lou enlisted in he Navy on 14 August 1962 at age 18. On 18 February 1965 you submitted a written...