DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TOR
Docket No: 9566-09
16 July 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 July 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 30 January 1974 at age 20. You
served without disciplinary incident until 27 January 1977, when
you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failure to go to
your appointed place of duty. The punishment imposed was
reduction to paygrade E-2. However, about nine months later, on
16 September 1977, you were advanced to paygrade E-3.
On 26 January 1978, upon completion of your required active
service, you were released from active duty under honorable
conditions and transferred to the Navy Reserve. On 29 January
1980, at the expiration of your enlistment, you were issued a
general discharge.
At the time of your release from active duty and discharge,
character of service was based, in part, on conduct and overall
trait averages which were computed from marks assigned during
periodic evaluations. Your conduct average was 2.8, however, an
average of 3.0 in conduct was required for a fully honorable
characterization of service.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth, period of satisfactory service, and desire to change
the characterization of your discharge. Nevertheless, the Board
concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief
because of your misconduct, and since your conduct average was
insufficiently high to warrant a fully honorable characterization
of service. 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,
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01492-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 November 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. An average of 4.0 in conduct was required at the time of your discharge for a fully honorable characterization of service.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01503-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 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 | CY2007 | 08780-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 June 2008. 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 | 10611-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 July 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 | 05234-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 March 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 | CY2001 | 01967-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 August 2000. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative of this regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings 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. totalling $396,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3840-13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your | application on 12 March 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10392-02
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 3.0 in conduct was required at the time of your separation for a fully honorable characterization of service. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is existence of probable on the applicant to demonstrate the material error or...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 08166-00
A three—member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 May 2001. The record does not reflect the disciplinary action taken, if any, for this period of UA. However, the Board concluded these factors and contention were not sufficient to warrant a change in the characterization of your service because of your frequent misconduct, which resulted in six disciplinary actions, and since your conduct average...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 05737-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 April 2010. At the time of your service, a conduct average of 4.0 was required for a fully honorable characterization of service. 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.