DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BUG
Decket No: 11116-09
2 August 2010
This is in reférence 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 28 July 2010. Your allegations of error and
injustice wére 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 entered active
duty in the Marine Corps on 15 October 1966. You were
honorably discharged on 13 October 1969. You are now
requesting that your record reflect that you were “slightly
wounded” above the left eye during a rocket attack in Vietnam
during May 1968. In its review of your application, the Board
carefully considered all mitigating factors, such as your
combat service in Vietnam. However, the Board was unable to
find that the alleged eye witness statement from Dr.D--- should
be filed in your record because it is illegible and there is no
other evidence to corroborate that you were wounded. In view
of the above, 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,
Doo :
W. DEAN P
Executive Bi tor
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06325-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 June 2010. The recommendation was approved by the separation authority, and you were separated with an undesirable discharge on 13 October 1970. : On 31 March 1978 the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) upgraded your discharge to general under the Special Discharge Review Program; however, on 20 June 1978 NDRB declined to affirm the upgrade under its uniform...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00734-10
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. You were released from active duty on 18 August 2004 under honorable conditions, and were assigned an RE-4 (not recommended for retention) reenlistment code. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04690-99
You were so discharged on 15 July The commanding officer noted In its review of your application the Board conducted a careful search of your service and medical records for any evidence showing you were wounded in action while serving in Vietnam. you were transferred from Vietnam, request to CMC to see if you were reported to have been wounded in action on 26 March 1966. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03314-10
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. As you have not demonstrated that you were unfit for duty on 5 June 1969, or that your release from active duty on that date was improper, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective action in your case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00590-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 October 2010. Since your discharge is less than 15 years old, you may apply to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) for a possible upgrade. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the exjystence of probable material error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11112-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28° 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 | 06327-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 September 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 | 01070-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 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. You were counseled and informed that you would receive a reenlistment code of RE-4 upon your separation as you were not recommended for retention.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 11813-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 March 2009. 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. 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 | CY2010 | 08832-10
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. Furthermore, the Board believed that considerable clemency was extended to you when your request for discharge to avoid trial by court-martial was approved. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence...