DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
REC
Docket No: 05250-10
23 March 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 23 March 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 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
Li justice.
You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on
27 February 1974. On 2 October 1974, you received nonjudicial
punishment (NTP) for wrongful use, transfer or sale of marijuana,
and being in an unauthorized absence (UA) status. On 12 Decenibes
1974, you received NUP for being UA for 42 days, and breaking
restriction. You were notified that administrative discharge
procedures were initiated and that you would receive a general
discharge upon your separation. On 13 December 1974, the
discharge authority directed a general discharge due to
unsuitability. You were so discharged on 10 January 1975.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth. However, the Board found that these factors were not
sufficient to warrant any change in your character of service
given your record of two NgP's for misconduct. The Board also
noted that you were fortunate to receive a general discharge
since a separation under other than honorable conditions is often
directed when an individual is found to have committed
misconduct. 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,
LoQent
W. DEAN PFHSAF
Executive ec}or
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 | CY2010 | 07251-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 April 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. On 29 December 1975, you received NUP for being UA for three days.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06287-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 March 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. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given the seriousness of your...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07590-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 May 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. On 26 April 1974 you submitted a written request for an other than honorable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for the foregoing...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04063-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 January 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 | CY2010 | 05656-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 January 2011. 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 . Cofisequently, wher applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden, is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00958-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your — application on 2 November 2011. On 27 February 1978, you were convicted by a special court-martial (SPCM) of being UA on three occasions totaling 1,082 days. 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 | 04115-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03870-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 January 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, reguiations, 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 | 07395-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 March 2011. Documentary material considered by together with all the Board consisted of your application, 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...