DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TAL
Docket No: 5234-09.
9 April 2010
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the 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 31 March 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 Marine Corps and began a period of active
duty on 30 August 1974 at age 18. On 22 November 1976, you
received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for unauthorized absence
(UA) from your appointed place of duty. On 16 December 1976, you
received NUP for UA from your appointed place of duty. On 12
January 1977, you received NUP for breaking restriction. On 10
February 1977, you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM)
for two instances of insubordinate conduct toward a
noncommissioned officer. On 31 March 1977, you were again
convicted by SCM for a 23 day period of UA from your unit and
disobeying a lawful order. On 16 August 1977, you received NJP
For two instances of UA from your appointed place of duty. On 31
August 1977, you received NUP for disrespectful language to a
superior noncommissioned officer and disobeying a lawful order.
You remained on active duty until 21 September 1977 when you were
discharged under general conditions at the expiration of your
enlistment based on your conduct mark average.
Characterization of service is based in part on conduct and
proficiency averages computed from marks assigned on a periodic
basis. Your conduct average was 3.5. At the time of your
service, a conduct average of 4.0 was required for a fully
honorable 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 concluded
these factors were not sufficient to warrant upgrading your
discharge given the five NUPs, two SCMs and failure to attain the.
required average in conduct. 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.
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,
\oo Auph
W. DEAN P
Executive ctor
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3840-13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your | application on 12 March 2014. 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 | 01889-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 November 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05539-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Nava! Records, Sitting im executive session, considered youn application on 23 January 2008 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 together with all material submitted in support and applicable statutes, regulations, Board. Nevertheless, the Board found that these...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03140-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 February 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04697-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 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 | CY2010 | 11955-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval - Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 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. 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 | CY2013 | NR8164 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 September 2014. 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 | CY2013 | NR8945 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 September 2014. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00021-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 September 2010. On 30 August 1989, you received NJP for UA Erom your appointed place of duty. 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 | CY1999 | 05737-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 April 2010. At the time of your service, a conduct average of 4.0 was required for a fully honorable characterization of service. 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.