DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TAL
Docket No: 800-10
19 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 14 October 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 and began a period of active duty on
26 April 1974 at age 17. On 17 January 1975, you were convicted
by special court-martial (SPCM) of three instances of
unauthorized absence (UA) that totaled a period of 76 days and
disrespect toward a superior officer. The sentence imposed was
two months confinement, and a forfeiture of pay. On 22 January
1975, you were notified of pending administrative discharge
processing with a general discharge due to unsuitability. In
connection with this processing, on 22 January 1975, you
acknowledged the separation action and on 30 January 1975, the
discharge authority approved the recommendation for separation.
On 29 January 1975, you were discharged with a general
characterization of service.
The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and
overall record of service. Nevertheless, the Board found that
these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization
of your discharge. The Board also believed that you were
fortunate to receive a general discharge since a separation under
other than honorable conditions is often directed when a Sailor
is separated for misconduct such as your UAs. Concerning your
alleged mental problems, there is no indication in the record
that such problems, if they existed at the time of your service,
were so serious as to excuse you of responsibility for your
actions or were sufficiently mitigating to warrant
recharacterization. Accordingly, your application has been
denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be
ri ; furnished upon réquest.
®. oT is ee that ‘the circumstances of your case are such that
favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have the
eBoard 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.
bo, s
\p Nes
Pesan aioe ctor
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02316-09
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 2 June 1976 you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to civil conviction. On 17 June 1976 the discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed your commanding officer to issue you an other than honorable | discharge by reason...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02983-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 January 2010. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of your misconduct that resulted in periods of UA totaling over five months, and request for discharge. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10461-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 September 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 05054-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 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. On 28 December 1976 the separation authority directed that you be separated for misconduct with a general discharge.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02243-09
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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probabie material error or injustice. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12287-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 August 2010. On 30 April 1975, you received a general 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 | CY2009 | 03043-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 January 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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded - these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of your misconduct...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03442-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 January 2010. On 16 May 1979, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct as evidenced by your 79 absences of the required 144 scheduled reserve drills for the period of 10 October 1975 through 10 gune 1979 and your NUP for UA from your unit while on involuntary active duty. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06516-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 March 2009. 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 27 January 1975, you waived the right to request restoration to duty and requested execution of the BCD.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03345-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 February 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...