Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 12330 11
Original file (12330 11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

 

CRS
Docket No: 12330-11
18 October 2012

 

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 29 August 2012. 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.

The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy Reserve on 14
April 1971. You received nonjudicial punishment on three
occasions for offenses that included assault, use of provoking
words, violation of a lawful order, and willful disobedience of
a lawful order. On 12 April 1972 you received a general
discharge by reason of unsuitability due to a character and
behavior disorder.

The Board found that you did not qualify for an honorable
characterization of service because your conduct mark average
was below the required 3.0 minimum average, which you did not
attain because of your three disciplinary actions. There is no
evidence in your record that you suffered from post traumatic
stress disorder which you stated caused 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 efEicial
naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the
existence of probable material error or injustice.

Sincerely,

1 ae are
ROBERT D. SALMAN
Acting Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03076-11

    Original file (03076-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors and contention were not sufficient to warrant a change in your characterization of service given your five NUJP’s, two of which involved the wrongful possession of marijuana, the diagnoses of a character and behavior disorder, and your...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01847-08

    Original file (01847-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 April 2009. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04008-07

    Original file (04008-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 October 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. 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 | CY2013 | NR963 13

    Original file (NR963 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 October 2013. A 3.0 conduct mark average was required for a fully honorable characterization of service. 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 | 11260-10

    Original file (11260-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 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. In December 1997 the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) changed your narrative reason for separation to Secretary of the Navy Plenary Authority...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01672-09

    Original file (01672-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. An average of 3.0 in conduct was required at the time of your separation for a fully honorable characterization of service. ‘Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your general discharge or change the narrative reason for...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01363-01

    Original file (01363-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 August 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. your application, thereof, Board was unable to obtain your service record and conducted its review based on the documentation submitted with your application. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07904-10

    Original file (07904-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 April 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 | CY2008 | 06514-08

    Original file (06514-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 May 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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your general discharge because of your...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08532-08

    Original file (08532-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ‘A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 August 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, After careful and- conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...