DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TIR
Docket No:.458-11
25 October 2011
This igs 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 25 October 2011. The names and votes of the
members of the panel will be furnished upon request. 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 Marine Corps on 10 June 1969 at age 18 and
served for a year and three months without disciplinary incident.
However, your record reflects that during the period from 9
September 1970 to 29 June 1971 you received nonjudicial
punishment (NJP) on four occasions and were convicted by special
court-martial (SPCM). Your offenses were disobedience, two
specifications of disrespect, theft of a handbag, a three day
period of unauthorized absence (UA), two specifications of
failure to obey a lawful order, failure to observe reveille, and
sleeping on post.
Subsequently, you were processed for an administrative separation
by reason of unfitness due to frequent involvement of a
discreditable nature with military or civilian authorities.
After waiving your procedural rights, your commanding officer
recommended an undesirable discharge by reason of unfitness due
to frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military
or civilian authorities. On 16 November 1971 the discharge
authority approved this recommendation and directed your
commanding officer to issue you an undesirable discharge by
reason of unfitness. On 30 November 1971 you were so discharged.
Your record reflects that on 12 August 1977, under the Department
of Defense Discharge (DOD) Special Discharge Review Program
(SDRP), the characterization of your undesirable discharge was
changed to general under honorable conditions. However, this
recharacterization does not entitle you to benefits administered
by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA). In June 1978, as
required by Public Law 95-126, the Navy Discharge Review Board
(NDRB) determined that you did not qualify for an upgrade of your
discharge under uniform standards and denied your request to
upgrade your general discharge. However, the characterization of
the discharge you received from the SDRP was not changed.
Subsequently, you were advised that the NDRB had not affirmed
your discharge and that you might be ineligible for veterans!
benefits.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully considered all mitigating factors, such as your youth,
desire to upgrade your discharge so that you may receive
vweterans' benefits, and the passage of time. Nevertheless, the
Board found the evidence and materials submitted were not
sufficient to warrant any favorable action given your frequent
misconduct which resulted in four NUPs and a court-martial
conviction. The Board noted that your characterization of
service was changed to general under honorable conditions under
the provisions of SDRP, but concluded that a further change was
not warranted. Accordingly, your application has been denied.
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,
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 12499 11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 October 2012. 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 | CY2001 | 02044-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 August 2000. 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 March 1969, you were On 15 December 1969 you received NJP for a two pay period punishment imposed was restriction for seven days and You were sentenced...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 06860-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive seseion, considered your , application on i November 2011. However, neither the DVA nor the Department of Defense considers a general discharge issued by the SDRP to entitle you to any benefits denied by the original 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 | 12117-10
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. However, neither the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) nor Department of Defense (DoD) considers an upgrade to a general discharge by the SDRP to entitle you to any benefits denied by reason of the original discharge. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6298 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 October 2014. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10254-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 July 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100007381
The law further required that uniform discharge review standards be published that were applicable to all persons administratively discharged or released from active duty under other than honorable conditions. Army Regulation 635-200 provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The ADRB upgraded the applicantÂ’s discharge from under other than honorable conditions to general under honorable conditions under the DOD SDRP on 16 February 1978...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100021239
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. However, his psychiatric examination indicated a borderline condition and that at the time, there was no evidence which indicated psychoses sufficient to warrant medical disposition under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04899-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 November 2001. 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. After review by the discharge authority, the On 4 November 1977 the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) changed the characterization of the discharge to general...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06900-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 March 2011. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...