DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TIR
Docket No: 6721-10
14 April 2011
This is in reference to your application fer correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, United
States Code, Section 1552.
BR three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 12 April 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 Navy on 21 June 1962 at age 17. It appears
that you served without disciplinary incident until 28 May 1965,
when you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failure to go
to your appointed place of duty and were awarded a reduction to
paygrade E-2. Shortly thereafter, on 18 June 1965, upon
completion of your required active service, you were honorably
discharged.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your overall satisfactory service, desire to correct your record
to reflect that you were not reduced in paygrade, and letter of
explanation surrounding the circumstances regarding imposition of
the NUP. It also considered your assertion that because of a
misunderstanding and the death of your mother, you did not
knowingly fail to go to your appointed place of duty.
Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not
sufficient to warrant relief because of your misconduct which
resulted in NUP and reduction in paygrade. Finally, the Board
concluded that there is no evidence in the record, and you
submitted none, to support your assertion. Accordingly, your
application has been denied.
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,
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 02604-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 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. 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 | 06169-10
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. On 25 September 1990 an ADB recommended discharge under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. 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 | 06732-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 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. 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 | 11259-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, gitting 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. An average of 4.0 in conduct was required at the time of your separation for a fully honorable characterization of service.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 01057-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 November 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 | 06182-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 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. 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 | 11002-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval- Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 July 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 22 June and again on 12 September 1966 you were convicted by SCM of two periods of UA totalling three days, failure to obey a lawful order, two...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05407-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 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. On 4 February 1964, you received NUP for UA from your unit.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00939-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 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. However, the record does not reflect the disciplinary action taken by civil authorities for this misconduct.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2015 | NR2814 15_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 April 2015. 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. The punishment imposed at your 14 March 1979 NJP was reduction to paygrade E-4, which was suspended for six months.