DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
WJH
Docket: 3266-10
13 Oct 2010
(ORM Corman al
This is in reference to your application for correction of
naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 1552.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 12 October 2010. Your allegations of error
and injustice were reviewed in accordance with the
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.
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion
furnished by the Navy Personnel Command letter 5730 PERS
912 of 30 June 2010, a copy of which is attached. The
Board also considered your comments submitted in reply to
the advisory opinion.
The Board also considered your request for a personal
appearance, however found that the issues in the case were
adequately documented and that a personal appearance would
not materially add to the Board’s understanding of the
issues involved. Thus, your request for a personal
appearance has been denied.
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable
material error or injustice. In this connection the Board
substantially concurred with the comments contained in the
advisory opinion. Records show that after you were passed
Docket: 3266-10
over for promotion, in compliance with federal law, you
were scheduled to be released from active duty on 30 June
1973. Based on a legal challenge to those laws, a federal
court issued an order temporarily restraining the Navy from
releasing you from active duty during the pendency of the
challenge. You were allowed to continue on active duty
between 1 July 1973 and 30 April 1975 over the Navy's
objection only because of the federal court challenge and
the associated restraining order. That challenge was
ultimately resolved in the Navy’s favor and on 30 April
1975 you were released from active duty. Under these
circumstances, the Board found no error or injustice in the
determination that you are not entitled to credit for
retired pay purposes for your service between 1 July 1973
and 30 April 1975. 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
also 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 PF i
Executive Dinre¢ctbr
i)
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09930-09
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 6 July 1973, you received NUP for being UA for a period of 15 days. Your case was heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB), which voted two to one in favor of an other than honorable discharge.
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 | 08088-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 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 | 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 | CY2010 | 04788-09
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. Consequentiy, 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 | 05322-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 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 | 10677-09
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 probable material error or injustice. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 02495-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 December 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 three...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09812-06
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. On 4 June 1975 your request for an undesirable discharge was approved by the separation authority. 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...