DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DG 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No. 00600-09
9 March 2010
This ig 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 Béard for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 4 March 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.
You served in the Marine Corps from 17 October 1960 to 14
December 1962, when you received an undesirable discharge based
on your record of nonjudicial punishment, and your convictions
by a summary court-martial and two special-courts martial. Your
offenses included multiple periods of unauthorized absence,
wrongfully and falsely altering an identification card, failure
to obey orders, and breaking restriction. One of the absences
was terminated by Canadian authorities, who arrested you for
assault with a deadly weapon. You were examined prior to your
discharge and found physically qualified for separation. On 8
June 1963, Veterans Administration (VA} officials determined
that your service was-performed under dishonorable conditions
and that you were therefore not eligible for VA benefits.
There is no indication in the available records that you were
unfit. for duty by reason of physical disability at the time of
your discharge. You would not have been entitled to disability
separation or retirement even if you had been disabled at that
time, because your undesirable discharge would have taken
precedence over disability processing. The Board did not accept
your unsubstantiated contention to the effect that you committed
the absence offenses because you were forced to seek civilian
medical care, Entries in your records indicate that the
absences were related to your dissatisfaction with life in the
Navy, and your desire to visit your girlfriend. The Board
concluded that your service was properly characterized as under
other than honorable conditions given your extensive _
disciplinary record, and that you have failed to demonstrate
that it would be in the interest of justice for the Board to
upgrade your 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,
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02688-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 October 2008. The recommendation was approved by the separation authority, and you received an undesirable discharge on 26 November 1954. 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 | 07710-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 May 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 | 04112-10
As your request for upgrade of your bad conduct discharge was denied by the Board on 22 October 1997, and you have not submitted any new material evidence of error or injustice in connection with that discharge, the Board limited its review to your request for correction of your record to show that you were separated or retired by reason of physical disability. You were separated from the Navy on 5 June 1981 with a bad conduct discharge upon the completion of the appellate review of your...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09067-09
You also were convicted by three summary courts-martial (SCM) of two periods of UA, two specifications of Gisobedience, and absence from your appointed place of duty. You were notified of pending administrative separation action and an administrative discharge board (ADB) recommended that you be discharge from the service with an undesirable discharged due to unfitness. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 05045-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 January 2010. 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 applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03004-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 June 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 | CY2009 | 10171-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 February 2010. 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 applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09397-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 January 2010. 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 applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03544-00
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. that you should have received a medical discharge rather than a The Board found that these discharge by reason of misconduct. factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your record of misconduct and especially_your request for discharge to avoid trial...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 00144-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 January 2008. On 20 December 1973 you received a fifth nonjudicial punishment, for absence from appointed place of duty. 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.