DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
REC
Docket No: 06564-10
11 March 2011
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 9 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
injustice.
You reenlisted in the Navy on 23 May 1969, after serving
honorably for four years. Between 5 August and 17 August 1970,
you received three nonjudicial punishments (NUJP’s). You
committed the following offenses: being in an unauthorized
absence (UA) status on three occasions totaling four days and
three hours, two instances of failure to obey a lawful order, and
violating your probation. On 13 October 1970, you were convicted
by a summary court-martial (SCM) of two incidents of disobeying a
lawful order, and being UA for three days. You were sentenced to
forfeitures of $96, reduction in pay grade, and confinement at
hard labor for 30 days. You were advised that your commanding
officer was recommending you for administrative separation with
an other than honorable (OTH) discharge due to misconduct. You
waived all of your procedural rights, including your right to an
administrative discharge board (ADB). On 25 November 1970, your
commanding officer forwarded his recommendation that you be
discharged with an OTH conditions by reason of unsuitability.
The discharge authority directed an OTH by reason of
unsuitability. On 31 December 1970, you were 80 discharged. At
that time you were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, conduct,
and prior honorable service. Nevertheless, the Board found that
these factors were not sufficient to warrant changing your
characterization of your discharge, given your record of three
NJP’s, and conviction by one SCM of misconduct. The Board also
noted that you waived the right to an ADB, your best opportunity
for retention or a better characterization of service.
: 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,
ls Bean
W. DEAN PF
Executive
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08496-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 June 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 ali material submitted in support thereof, your late husband's naval record, and applicable statutes,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05700-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 February 2011. On 6 April 1973, you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of two instances of unauthorized absence (UA) from your unit for a period totaling 141 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 | 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 | CY2010 | 11257-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 August 2011. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 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 | 11921-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 August 2011. You were notified of pending administrative discharge processing with an other than honorable (OTH) 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 | CY2010 | 03773-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 January 2011. On 9 November 1990 you were so discharged. 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 | 00214-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your , application on 13 October 2011. On 13 December 1961, you received NUP for three incidents of failure to go to 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 | CY2013 | NR4068-13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your . _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 material error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10651-10
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. In this regard, an RE-4 reenlistment code is required when an individual is discharged for misconduct and is not recommended for retention.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05028-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 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. Subsequently, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.