Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00449-10
Original file (00449-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

REC
Docket No: 00449-10
22 September 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 22 September 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 enlisted in the Navy on 29 April 1969, at the age of 17. On
13 July 1970, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for
failure to obey a lawful order by bringing alcoholic beverages
onboard a ship. On 20 January 1971, you received NUP for
striking a Shore Patrolman. On 31 March 1971, you received NJP
for being in an unauthorized absence (UA) status and missing your
ship’s movement. On 14 April 1971, you were notified that
administrative discharge procedures were initiated and that you
would receive a reenlistment code of RE-4 upon your separation.
However, on 15 April 1971, you received your fourth NUP for being
in a UA status. The discharge authority directed a general
discharge. You were so discharged on 22 April 1971.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth and immaturity. However, the Board found that these
factors were not sufficient to warrant any change in your
character of service, given your record of four NUP’s for
misconduct. The Board also noted that you were fortunate to
receive a general discharge since a separation under other than
honorable conditions is often directed when an individual is
found to have committed misconduct. 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.
Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval
record, che burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the
existence of probable material error or injustice.

 

Sincerely,
Ls Near, :
\
W. DEAN PFE Ri
Executive D tor

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 05465-09

    Original file (05465-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. During the period of 3 December 1968 to 13 March 1969, awaiting convening authority’s action on the SPCM, you commenced a seven day period of UA. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10658-09

    Original file (10658-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 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 | 04804-09

    Original file (04804-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 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 | 08496-09

    Original file (08496-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 June 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 ali material submitted in support thereof, your late husband's naval record, and applicable statutes,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00260-09

    Original file (00260-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 23 April 1986, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. 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 | 11653-09

    Original file (11653-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 August 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03706-07

    Original file (03706-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 February 2008. Subsequently, your request for discharge was granted, and on 11 May 1973 you received an undesirable discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of the seriousness of your repetitive misconduct and lengthy periods of UA, which also resulted in your request for discharge.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 07289-09

    Original file (07289-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2009 | 07289-09

    Original file (07289-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2010 | 00619-10

    Original file (00619-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 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.