DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No. 10171-0609
22 February 2010
This.is 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 Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 4 February 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 that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice.
The Board found that you enlisted in the Marine Corps on 30
November 1978. You received nonjudicial punishment on two
occasions for unauthorized absence (UA) offenses, and were
discharged under other than honorable conditions on 2 April 1981
in accordance with your request for discharge for the good of
the service in lieu of trial by court-martial for a lengthy
period of UA. Documents in your official military personnel file
indicate that you UA offenses were related to your family
Situation.
There is no indication in the available records that you were
unfit for duty by reason of physical disability. You would not
have been eligible for disability separation or retirement even
if you had been unfit for duty, as a discharge for the good of
the service would have taken precedence over disability
processing. Your contention that you were unlawfully enlisted
because you suffered from color blindness is unsubstantiated,
and does not provide a basis for upgrading your discharge.
In view of the foregoing, 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,
aaa rbabd
W. DEAN PF R
Executive Digertor
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04112-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 February 2010. You would not have been entitled to disability separation or retirement even if you had been disabled, because your discharge for the good of the service would have taken precedence over disability evaluation procession. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09970-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 January 2010. The Naval Discharge Review Board denied your request for upgrade of your discharge on or about 4 February 2000. 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 | CY2010 | 00165-10
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. Your request for discharge was granted and on 18 February 1969, you received an undesirable discharge due to unfitness for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00868-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 February 2009. The Board could not find any indication in the available records that you were unfit for duty by reason of physical disability on 22 October 1991. 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 | 04190-09
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 19 June 1951, your commanding officer submitted a presumption of fraudulent enlistment report that revealed you erroneously enlisted in the Marine Corps having been discharged from the Air Force by reason of physical disability. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03582-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 February 2011. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material gubmitted 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 | 03820-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 February 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 | 04245-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 March 2010. On 29 April 1965, your commanding officer forwarded your case concurring with the Boards’ findings and recommendation that you receive an undesirable discharge by reason of unfitness. 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 | CY2010 | 06105-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 March 2011. About six months later, on 13 May 1957, you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of a 38 day period of UA. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your prior honorable service, belief that you received a bad conduct (BCD) or dishonorable (DD) discharge,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04100-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 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...