DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BUG
Docket No: 329-11
12 October 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 12 October 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. oO
You enlisted in the Naval Reserve and entered active duty on 28
March 1945. You received two captain’s masts and an officer in
charge’s mast for absence over liberty, not wearing a “squared
away” cover, and sleeping while on duty. You are only
contesting the sleeping while on duty captain’s mast. On 27
June 1946, you received an honorable characterization of
service discharge at the completion of your required active
duty.
In its review of your application, the Board carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, World
War II service, and alleged hearing loss. However, the Board
concluded that your captain’s mast should not be removed since
you have provided no evidence of any hearing loss at the time
of your offense. The Board noted that your health record does
not reveal any evidence of hearing loss, and that the charge is
sleeping while on duty, not failing to report for duty due to
over sleeping. The Board also noted that you were fortunate to
receive an honorable characterization of service since Sailors
who have committed misconduct such as yours are normally
discharged under other than honorable conditions. 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,
\\Deaes .
W. DEAN PFENF
Executive Diyeltto
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201913
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant seeks an upgrade to qualify for the G.I. Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for separation shall remain .The Applicant remains eligible for a...
NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00027
ND02-00027 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010917, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to Release from Active Duty. The other than honorable discharge was improper and therefore warrants an upgrade to honorable since there is no direct link or evidence that the consumed mushrooms actually contained a controlled substance as listed in Article 112a Wrongful Use,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10344-08
An average of 3.25 in conduct was required at the time of your separation for an honorable characterization of service. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, -honorable post military service, and desire to... upgrade your.discharge..- Nevertheless, the Board concluded these. for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07036-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 March 2011. The Board believed you were fortunate to receive a general discharge, since Sailors who have committed misconduct such as yours are normally administratively separated and receive an other than honorable characterization of service. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 04896-03
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 October 2003. At the time of his BOI, it was customary to only file BOI findings in an officer's record if the findings included a recommendation to discharge the officer. The BOI findings not being included in his official record did not make his record incorrect, nor did it disadvan.tage him during the selection boards.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06371-10
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. Your request for discharge was granted and on 19 March 1952, you received an other than honorable discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02786-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 August 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. You were sentenced to extra duty for three months and a bad conduct you were convicted by SCM of theft of .45 caliber pistol valued at The BCD was suspended for 12...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09613-06
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 15 July 1948 you enlisted in the Navy at age 18. On 19 September 1952 you received CM for throwing...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10963-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 October 2003. 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. Shortly thereafter, on 13 June 1947, you were convicted by SCM of absence from your appointed place of duty and disobedience.
NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00337
ND00-00337 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000113, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (D and E).In the applicant’s issue 1, there is no law or regulation that provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge...