DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BAN
Docket No: 01697-10
25 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 om 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. 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 31 October 1973, and
served without disciplinary incident until you entered an
unauthorized absence (UA) status and later surrendered to
military authorities. You received a mental health evaluation
and were deemed unsuitable for military service due to your ,
immature personality and recommended for separation. On 23 April
1974, you received nonjudicial punishment for a UA in excess of
11 days. Therefore, you were processed for separation due to
your unsuitability and on 1 May 1974, you were separated with an
honorable 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 and personal statement. Nevertheless, the Board
concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant changing
your total active duty service time from 169 days to 180 days.
Although your total time was from 31 October 1973 to 1 May 1974,
you had 11 days removed from your total active duty service due
to your lost time for UA. 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.
Conisequent yg, whew SPPsying 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,
INaame
W. DEAN PF
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03910-02
November 1973 you were convicted by SPCM of four periods of UA totalling 566 days. On 10 April 1974 the discharge authority directed period of UA. an undesirable discharge by reason of misconduct due to civil conviction.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08125-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 May 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. On 12 April 1973 you received NJP for two periods of absence from your appointed place of duty, disobedience, and a five day period of UA. November 1976, you submitted a written request for an undesirable discharge in order...
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 | CY2006 | 07979-06
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 an conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Boar found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.On 14 September 972 you enlisted in the Marine Corps at age 20. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 04611-04
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 March 2005. 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 | CY2009 | 03946-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 March 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with ail material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. The record reflects that there was no disciplinary action taken for this period of UA.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09438-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your ‘application on 11 August 2009. It also considered your assertion that you were told that your discharge would be automatically upgraded 90 days after your separation from the Navy. 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 | 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 | 07609-10
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. An average of 4.0 in conduct was required at the time of your separation for a fully honorable characterization of service. Further, Marines with an extensive record of misconduct, such as yours, normally receive discharges under other than honorable conditions, and as such the Board noted...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07407-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 April 2008. 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...