DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
: 2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TUR
Docket No: 3238-09
26 March 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 23 March 2010. The names and votes 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 6 May 1969 and served for about 175
days without disciplinary incident. However, on 28 October 1969,
you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for wrongfully
possessing and altering a military identification card. The
punishment imposed was extra duty for two hours, reduction in
rate, and forfeiture of one day of pay.
The record reflects that you continued to serve without further
disciplinary incident, and on 13 May 1972, you were honorably
released from active duty within three months of your term of
obligated service. On 5 May 1975, upon completion of your
required active service, you were honorably discharged.
Regulations governing. the issuance of a Good Conduct Medal, which
were in effect during your period of service, state in part, that
a Sailor must serve three or more continuous years of active
service without any court-martial convictions, NJP, lost time, or
civil conviction to warrant entitlement to a Good Conduct Medal.
In this regard, your period of continuous active service was
interrupted when you received NUP on 28 October 1969, thus
starting a new date for continuous service.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your overall satisfactory service and desire to be issued a Good
Conduct Medal. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors
were not sufficient to warrant a Good Conduct Medal because of
your noneligibility for such an award due to your misconduct,
which resulted in NUP. 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,
\ Soon ut
W. DEAN P
Executive ctor
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01693-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 October 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 | 02201-09
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. On 31 December 1968 you were again convicted by SPCM of an 87 day period of UA and sentenced to confinement at hard labor for six months and a bad conduct discharge (BCD). Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...
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 | CY2011 | 00095-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 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 | CY2009 | 03156-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 February 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, You initially enlisted in the Air Force from July 1972 to April 1974, and received an honorable discharge. Consequently, when applying for a correction of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01728-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 January 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, You’ enlisted in the Navy on 21 November 1968 at age 19. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
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 | CY2007 | 11339-07
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. On 15 November 1968 you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of three periods of UA totalling 64 days and sentenced to confinement at hard labor for three months. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00373-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 September 2010. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 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 | 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...