DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
BUG
Docket No: 432-12
17 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 10 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 30 July
1963. You received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on three
occasions for unauthorized absence (two specifications totaling
10 days), missing movement, insubordinate conduct, and being out
of bounds without a pass. On 7 August 1965, you completed your
active duty obligation and were transferred to the Naval Reserve
with a general discharge. On 17 July 1969, you were discharged
from the Naval Reserve with a general discharge.
Character of service is based in part on conduct marks assigned
on a periodic basis. Your conduct mark average was 2.8. A 3.0
conduct mark average was required for a fully honorable
characterization of service.
In its review of your application, the Board carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and
current desire to upgrade your discharge. However, the Board
concluded that your discharge should not be changed due to your
NJP’s and insufficiently high conduct mark average. You are
advised that no discharge is automatically 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,
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 01496 12
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 accordance with the foregoing, on 17 November 1974, upon completion of your required active service, you received a general discharge under honorable conditions. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR979 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 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 LnjUSsL.Les.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR963 13
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 | CY2011 | 12520 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 | CY2007 | 07742-07
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval retord, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. A three-member panel * the Board for Correction of Naval After careful and cons¢ientious 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR6733 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 July 2014. 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 | NR3691 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 April 2014. 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 discharge given your seven NUP’s,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 00627 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 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. At the time of your service, a conduct mark average of 3.00 was required for a fully honorable characterization of service.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 00564 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 October 2012. The Board believed you were fortunate to receive a general characterization of service, because you could have been administratively separated due to misconduct with an other than 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00322-11
BR three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 October 2011. Characterization of service is based, in part, on trait marks assigned on a periodic basis. 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.