DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 10014
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
BUG
Docket No: 25-12
22 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 3 October 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.
You enlisted in the Navy and entered active duty on 29 October
1973. You received nonjudicial punishment on six occasions for
sleeping on post, unauthorized absence, absence from your
appointed place of duty (six specifications), disrespect,
wrongful possession of marijuana, and disobeying a lawful order
(four specifications). You were then notified that your
commanding officer was recommending you for administrative
separation with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization
of service due to unfitness. You exercised your procedural
right to have your case heard by an administrative discharge
board (ADB). The ADB met, found that you had committed
misconduct, and recommended an OTH characterization of service
discharge due to unfitness. On 8 October 1975, you were
discharged with an OTH characterization of service due to
unfitness, and 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, current
desire to upgrade your discharge, and post service good conduct.
However, the Board concluded that your discharge should not be
changed due to your numerous acts of misconduct. You are
advised that no discharge is 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,
— BS, foe
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 00561 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 October 2012. You were then notified that your commanding officer was recommending you for administrative separation with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05528-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 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. 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 | CY2011 | 03442-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 January 2012. On 3 October 1988, you were discharged with an OTH characterization of service due to misconduct, and assigned an RE-4 (not recommended for retention) reenlistment code. 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 | 00246 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 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. However, the Board concluded that your discharge should not be changed due to your numerous acts of misconduct.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04960-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 February 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 | CY2011 | 05441 11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 February 2012. You were then notified that your commanding officer was recommending you for administrative separation with an other than honorable (OTH) characterization of service 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03870-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 February 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 01117-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 October 2011. You are advised that no discharge is automatically upgraded due merely to the passage of time or post service good conduct. 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 | 01145 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 November 2012. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant changing the characterization of your discharge, given your record of three NJP’s, two convictions by SPCM’s, and by two SCM’s of serious misconduct. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR627 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 September 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...