DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TAL
Docket No: 6243-10
16 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 10 March 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 Marine Corps and began a period of active
on 29 March 1971 at age 19. You were admitted to the Naval
Hospital, St. Albans, New York, with a secondal overdose. On
10 November 1972, you were the subject of a medical evaluation
board which diagnosed you with an emotionally unstable
personality disorder that existed prior to your entry in the
Marine Corps, of such severity as to interfere with serving
adequately and recommended you for an expeditious administrative
separation. On 7 December 1972, you received nonjudicial
punishment (NJP) for two instances of unauthorized absence (UA)
from your unit for a period totaling 109 days. Your commanding
officer directed that you be discharged by reason of your
personality disorder. You received a general discharge on
14 December 1972.
Characterization of service is based in part on conduct and
proficiency averages computed from marks assigned on a periodic
basis. Your conduct average was 2.8. 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 entire record and 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
recharacterization of your discharge given your misconduct and
insufficiently high conduct average. Accordingly, your
application has been denied. The names and votes of the members
6f 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,
Dor
Executive
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03798-10
BA three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 January 2011. However, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant any change in your character of service, given your record of three NUJP's for misconduct and insufficiently high conduct mark average. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 07663-03
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 iniusti cc. On 24 June 1972 the discharge authority directed a general discharge by reason of unsuitability due...
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 | 05358-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 February 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. Your conduct average was 3.5.
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 04695-98
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 August 1999. The record further reflects two periods of UA from 2-10 June and 22-23 June 1971, for which no disciplinary action is shown in the record. 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 | CY2010 | 11260-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting 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. In December 1997 the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) changed your narrative reason for separation to Secretary of the Navy Plenary Authority...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05635-10
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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 02182-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 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 | CY2011 | 00083-11
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 23 March 1972, you received NUP for being UA for four 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 | CY2011 | 01149-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 October 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...