DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BAN
Docket No: 11257-10
15 August 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 August 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 entered active duty in the Navy on 29 December 1977, and
served without incident until 29 November 1978, when you received
nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for disobeying a lawful order.
Shortly thereafter, you received the following disciplinary
actions: on 24 May 1979, you received NUP for three
specifications of unauthorized absence (UA); on 28 June 1979, you
received NUP for UA; on 6 September 1973, you were convicted at a
summary court-martial (SCM) of four specifications of UA, missing
ship’s movement, and sleeping on post; on 27 February 1980, you
received NUP for three specifications of UA; on 3 January 1980,
you received NIP for two specification of disrespect; and on 10
March 1980, you were convicted at another SCM of UA, two
specifications of failure to obey a lawful order and disrespect.
Therefore, you were recommended for separation with an other than
honorable (OTH) discharge due to misconduct. You waived your
rights to consult with counsel and request an administrative
discharge board (ADB). The separation authority approved the
recommendation and on 27 May 1980, you were separated with an OTH
discharge and an RE-4 reenlistment code.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth, and claim that you were told your characterization of
discharge would be upgraded. Nevertheless, the Board concluded
these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change to your
characterization of discharge due to your frequent acts of
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,
Va Decne X
W. DEAN PFECEF
Executive Dive
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05796-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 March 2011. On 14 June 1979, you received NUP for being disrespectful toward you a chief petty officer on two occasions, and failure to obey a written regulation. On 17 February 1983, after appellate review, you received the BCD.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04332-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 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 | CY2008 | 09317-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 August 2009. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth. 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 | 03156-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 February 2010. 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 initially enlisted in the Air Force from July 1972 to April 1974, and received an honorable discharge. Consequently, when applying for a correction of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 05185 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 March 2013. 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 | 04197-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 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,jwhen 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 | 12441-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 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. 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 | 04382-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 January 2011. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the preceedings 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,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04498-09
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. On 12 September 1980, you received NUP for 16 periods of failure to go to your appointed place of duty and a 20 day period of UA. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10658-10
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 20 October 1978, you received NIP for being UA for three 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.