DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BAN
Docket No: 2882-09
25 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 13 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 the evidence submitted was insufficient
to establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice.
You initially enlisted in the Marine Corps, served from 1970 to
1973, and received an honorable discharge. You reenlisted on 24
July 1973, and served without disciplinary incident until 26
March 1975, when you were arrested in Orange County, California
for the possession of an illegal substance (marijuana). Shortly
thereafter, on 9 May 1975, you were convicted at a general court-
martial for larceny, uttering 13 false checks with the intent to
defraud, 13 specifications of a general order violation, and you
received a dishonorable discharge. Therefore, on 17 December
1976, you were separated with a dishonorable discharge and 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 and the passage of time. Nevertheless, the Board
concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant changing
the characterization of your discharge due to your serious,
repetitive misconduct. Finally, there is no provision in the law
or regulations that allow for recharacterization of service due
solely to the passage of time. 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.
Conseguently, 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,
WX
W. DEAN PFET
Fxecutive Di
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 05322-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 April 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 | CY2009 | 03043-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 January 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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded - these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of your misconduct...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06742-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 March 2010. 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 applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02983-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 January 2010. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of your misconduct that resulted in periods of UA totaling over five months, and request for discharge. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02697-09
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. 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 | CY2008 | 09370-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting:in executive session, considered your — application on 13 August 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. entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09068-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 May 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. Your request for discharge was granted and on 7 November 1975, you received an OTH discharge for the good of the service.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01517-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 September 2008. 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 applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8150 13
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 elected to consult with legal counsel and subsequently requested an administrative discharge board (ADB). 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 | 01863-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 December 2009. Therefore, you were recommended for administrative separation with an undesirable discharge (UD) due to being unfit for military service, and you exercised your right to request an administrative discharge board (ADB). Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...