Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 02609-10
Original file (02609-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

TUR
Docket No: 2609-10
26 January 2011

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 19 January 2011. The names and votes of the
members of the panel will be furnished upon request. 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 19 March 1956 at age 17 and
immediately began a period of active duty. You served for a year
and four months without disciplinary incident, but on 22 July
1957, you received nonjudicial punishment (NIP) for absence from
your appointed place of duty, three specifications of
disobedience, contempt, and disrespect. About six months later,
on 30 January 1958, you received NUP for absence from your
appointed place of duty and were awarded restriction for one
week. On 9 December 1958 you received your third NUP for a one
day period of unauthorized absence (UA). The punishment imposed
was extra duty for six hours.

On 29 October 1959, while serving in paygrade E-3, you were
released from active duty and transferred to the Naval Reserve
under honorable conditions. On 18 March 1962, at the expiration
of your enlistment, you were issued a general discharge
certificate.
At the time of your release, character of service was based, in
part, on conduct and overall trait averages which were computed
from marks assigned during periodic evaluations. Your conduct
average was 2.93. An average of 3.0 in conduct was required at
the time of your release for a fully honorable characterization
of service.

é
The Board, in its réview of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth and desire to upgrade the characterization of your
release from active duty and discharge. Nevertheless, the Board
concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant
recharacterization of your separation because of the seriousness
of your repetitive misconduct which resulted in three NUPs, and
since your conduct average was insufficiently high to warrant a
fully honorable characterization of service. Finally, Sailors
with an extensive record of misconduct, such as yours, normally
receive discharges under other than honorable conditions, and as
such the Board noted that you were fortunate to receive a general
characterization of service. Accordingly, your application has

been denied.

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,

W. DEAN DF E
Executive Dare

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04676-09

    Original file (04676-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 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. 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 | 12366-09

    Original file (12366-09.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 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11259-10

    Original file (11259-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, gitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 August 2011. 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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07567-08

    Original file (07567-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 June 2009. Furthermore, disciplinary action and an administrative separation are appropriate for alcohol related offenses. 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 | 07929-08

    Original file (07929-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 May 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. 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 | CY2011 | 00552-11

    Original file (00552-11.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. You remained on active duty until 18 July 1958 when you were discharged under general conditions at the expiration of your enlistment based on your disciplinary record and conduct mark average. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01073-02

    Original file (01073-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 December 2002. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11332-10

    Original file (11332-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ‘ A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 July 2011. Characterization of service is based in part on conduct averages computed from marks assigned on a periodic basis. 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 | 02411-09

    Original file (02411-09.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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant upgrading your discharge given the six NJP’s, conviction by SCM and SPCM, two civil convictions, and your failure to attain the required average in conduct. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02056-08

    Original file (02056-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 January 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...