DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BAN
Docket No: 12070-10
19 September 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 15 September 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 25 February 1965, and served without
disciplinary incident until 7 October 1966, when you received
nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for dereliction of duty. Shortly
thereafter, you received the following disciplinary actions: on
28 November 1966, you were convicted at a special court-martial
(SPCM) of unauthorized absence (UA) (40 days) and breach of
restraint; on 14 June 1967, you received NUP for disobeying a
Lawful order; on that same day, you were convicted in civil court
of drag racing; and on 30 April 1968, you received another SPCM
for three specifications of UA, totaling four months and 10 days.
You sentence included a bad conduct discharge (BCD). Therefore,
on 5 December 1968, after appellate review, you were separated
with a BCD and an RE-4 reenlistment code due to your conviction
at a SPCM.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth, and Vietnam service. However, the Board concluded
these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization
of your discharge because of the seriousness of your 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,
\
\a Que
W. DEAN PFE
Executive D r
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11000-10
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 1 April 1968 you received your third NUP for two periods of absence from 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 | CY2010 | 06291-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 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. 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 | 05129-10
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. Cofisequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06399-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 February 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. On 9 May 1968 you were convicted by special martial (SPCM) of an 86 day period of UA and were awarded confinement at hard labor for five months and a $450...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09486-08
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 | CY2001 | 06684-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 March 2001. 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. A year later, on 12 April 1968, you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of three periods of unauthorized absence (UA) totalling 62 days and breaking...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01178-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 June 2009. 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 | CY2008 | 01178-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 June 2009. 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 | 06268-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 March 2011. On 4 February 1969, you were again UA from your unit until you were apprehended one 28 June 1969, by the Federal Breaual of Investigation (FBI), in McClure, Pennsylvania, a period of 138 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06087-10
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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...