DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BUG
Docket No: 11477-10
27 July 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 26 July 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 that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice.
You enlisted in the Marine Corps and entered active duty on 27
March 1968. You received nonjudicial punishment on seven
occasions for four specifications of unauthorized absence (UA)
totaling 62 days, making a false official statement, breaking
restriction, and wrongfully possessing a false liberty card.
You were pending a court-martial for UA (six specifications
totaling 94 days), willfully disobeying a lawful order,
disrespect, breaking restriction (two specifications), and
making a false official statement. You were then notified that
your commanding officer was recommending you for administrative
separation with an undesirable discharge (UD} due to
misconduct. You waived all of your procedural rights,
including your right to an administrative discharge board
(ADB). On 3 December 1970, you received a UD due to
misconduct, and were assigned an RE-4 (not recommended for
retention) reenlistment code.
In its review of your application, the Board carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and
Vietnam combat service. The Board concluded, however, that
your discharge should not be upgraded due to your numerous acts
of misconduct. The Board found that you waived your right to
an ADB, your best opportunity for retention or a better
characterization of service. You are advised that no discharge
is automatically upgraded due merely to the passage of time or
post service good conduct. In view of the above, 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,
W. DEAN PFE E
Executive D cter
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10144-07
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.On 25 August 1960, you enlisted in the Navy at age 17 with parental consent. On 20 November 1962, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03536-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 January 2008. 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 24 January 1983, administrative discharge action was initiated to separate you by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01596-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 November 2009. 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 | CY2009 | 07240-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27:May 2010. 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 | CY2007 | 07433-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 April 2008. 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 connection with this processing, you acknowledged that separation could result in an undesirable discharge (UD), waived the right to have your...
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 | CY2012 | 02341 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 | CY2007 | 08211-07
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.On 26 October 1985, you enlisted in the Naval Reserve at age 17 with parental consent. On 29 October...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR5808 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 May 2014. You were then advised that your command was administratively separating you with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service 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 | CY2013 | NR3628 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 April 2014. 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 during the period from 3 June 1982 to 20 January 1984, you received five nonjudicial punishments (NUP’s) for two instances of...