DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TUR
Docket No: 1728-09
li January 2010
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 5 January 2010. The names and-vetes—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 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 21 November 1968 at age 19. You
served without disciplinary incident until 1 October 1969, when
you received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for absence from your
appointed place of duty. Shortly thereafter, on 29 October 1969,
you received NUP for disobedience.
On 31 March and again on 15 April 1970 you received NUP for
failure to go to your appointed place of duty, assault, and
breach of the peace as a result of a fist fight. On 4 June 1970
you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of two periods
of failure to go to your appointed place of duty, absence from
your appointed place of duty, and disobedience. On 24 July 1970
you received your fifth NUP for two periods of absence from your
appointed place of duty.
Subsequently, you were processed for an administrative separation
by reason of convenience of the government due to a reduction in
authorized strength. The discharge authority directed separation
under honorable conditions by reason of convenience of the
government and on 12 August 1970, while serving in paygrade E-2,
you were issued a general discharge and assigned an RE-4
reenlistment code.
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 desire to upgrade your
discharge and change your reenlistment code. Nevertheless, the
Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant
recharacterization of your discharge or a change of your
reenlistment code because of the seriousness of your misconduct
which resulted in five NUJPs and a court-martial conviction.
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,
\Won.&
W. DEAN PPE
Executive Darnester
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10982-10
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. As a result, on 27 January 1971, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 04153-12
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. This recommendation also noted your two NUJPs and two court-martial convictions. The Board, in its.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08827-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 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 | CY2010 | 08316-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 April 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 | CY2006 | 08600-06
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 July 2007. your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Nevertheless, on 17 November 1969 you received your sixth NUP for failure to obey a lawful order and were awarded restriction and extra duty for 14 days. The record further reflects that on 1...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11829-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 August 2010. Subsequently, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to civil conviction. 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 | CY2007 | 04030-07
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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4650 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 May 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. Your request for discharge was granted and on 28 August 1970, you received an other than honorable discharge for the good of the service in lieu of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00109-10
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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11259-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, gitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 August 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. An average of 4.0 in conduct was required at the time of your separation for a fully honorable characterization of service.