DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BAN
Docket No: 06992-10
31 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 30 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 enlisted in the Navy on 24 August 1953, and served without
disciplinary incident. However, you were separated on 5 November
1954, due to pregnancy and received an honorable discharge.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your claim that you did not receive credit for 13 weeks of
recruit training, thereby changing your enlistment date from
August 1953 to April 1953. However, you provided no
documentation that supports your claim. Additionally, your
record shows an enlistment contract that you signed on 24 August
1953. Recruit training commences after you sign your enlistment
contract and not before; therefore, you could not have received
recruit training prior to your date of entry into military
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,
7 uy Dong
W. DEAN PFERF
Executive Dire r
y Ee
me
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08235-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 April 2008. your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with. 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, several documents in the record, which were signed by you,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02895-02
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by CNO memorandum which is attached. 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. an Enlistment Bonus (EB).
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05477-02
3 A three—member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 February 2003. In March 1962, during an investigation into the allegations of fraudulent enlistment, (CT) Camerino submitted a letter which stated that she was your wife because the two of you were married on 27 August 1956, and had children. At that time, you denied being married to (SS) Camerino.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03505-10
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. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11234-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 August 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 | CY2001 | 00676-01
A three—member panel for the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 May 2001. You were sentenced to confinement at hard labor for two months, forfeitures of $50 per month for two months, and a bad conduct discharge. 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 | 07221-10
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. At the time of your service, a conduct average of 3.25 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10393-09
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 Board concluded that your BCD should not be changed due to your serious act of 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 | CY2014 | NR7121 14
In your own words you state “my recruiter and classifier at MEPS both failed to make me aware of the bonus I was entitled to as per my rate (AIRC), and time of entry.” Enlistment bonuses are not a Docket No. In your case it was not offered and you voluntarily signed up without the incentive of an enlistment bonus. 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 | 03242-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 August 1999. 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. The Board found that these factors and contentions were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your extensive...