DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BAN
Docket No: 00604-10
4 October 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 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. 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 entered active duty in the Navy on 11 April 1978, and served
without disciplinary incident until 26 April 1979, when you
received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for two specifications of
an unauthorized absence (UA), and dereliction of duty. Shortly
thereafter, you received the following NJP’s: on 3 May 1979, for
UA; on 7 June 1979, for two specifications for UA and breaking
restriction; on 2 May 1980, for disobeying a lawful order and
sleeping during working hours; on 7 May 1980, for UA, and
dereliction of duty; and on 22 May 1980, for two specifications
of illegally possessing alcohol on a naval vessel, UA, and
destruction of government property. Therefore, you were
recommended for separation with an other than honorable (OTH)
discharge due to frequent involvement of a discreditable nature.
You waived your rights to consult with counsel and request an
administrative discharge board (ADB). The separation authority
approved the recommendation and on 25 January 1982, you were
separated with an OTH discharge and an RE-4 reenlistment code.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were
not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge
because of your extensive record of misconduct. Additionally,
the Board found that you waived your procedural right to an ADB,
your best opportunity for retention or a better characterization
@eservice: Accor@ngly, your application has been denied. The
#hames and votes off the members of the panel will be furnished
foot request. é
Fe ‘ Be
Wt is regretted tHat the circumstances of your case are such that
" annmuaibbe action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have the
Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and material
gevidence. or other matter not previously considered by the Board.
n this regatd™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,
lo
W. DEAN ERF
Executive Diregtpr
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 | 02982-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your , application on 5 January 2010. On 26 March 1980, you were notified that administrative separation action. 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 | 03805-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 January 2011.° 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,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04382-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 January 2011. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the preceedings 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,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11257-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 August 2011. 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 | CY2008 | 10573-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 August 2009. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and the passage of time. 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 | CY2012 | 03556 12
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. Therefore, in May 1981, you received an ADB and it voted to separate you with an OTH discharge due to 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 | CY2011 | 11864 11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 November 2012. 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 | CY2010 | 04330-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 January 2011. 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 | CY2010 | 00634-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 October 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.