Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 01350 12
Original file (01350 12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

SIN
Docket No: 01350-12
5 December 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 4 December 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 the evidence submitted was insufficient
to establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice.

You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on

28 May 1969. Although your record is incomplete, the Board found
that on 18 August 1970, you received nonjudicial punishment (NUP)
for 18 days of unauthorized absence and missing ship’s movement.
Subsequently, it appears you were processed for separation by
reason of convenience of the government due to substandard
performance and behavior or inability to adapt to military
service. After being afforded your procedural rights, your case
was forwarded to the separation authority recommending a general
Qischarge. The separation authority concurred and directed that
you receive a general discharge. You were so discharged on

28 August 1970.

The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and record
of service. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were
not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge
given your NUP for the serious offense of missing ship's movement
and substandard performance. The Board believed you were
fortunate to receive a general characterization of service, since
Sailors who are separated for misconduct such as yours normally
receive other than honorable discharges. 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 official naval
record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the
existence of probable material error or injustice.

Sincerely,

Lda

W. DEAN PFET
Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 00263-12

    Original file (00263-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 September 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11653-09

    Original file (11653-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 August 2010. 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 Material...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03003-10

    Original file (03003-10.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. A year later, on 28 November 1969, you were convicted by SPCM of a 268 day period of UA. On 2 March 1970 you submitted a written request for remission of the BCD and to be issued a general discharge.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00449-10

    Original file (00449-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 September 2010. 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, on 15 April 1971, you received your fourth NUP for being in a UA status.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 00286-12

    Original file (00286-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 September 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. On 9 May 1986, you received NUP for being UA for one day.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04732-11

    Original file (04732-11.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. 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 20 June 1991 the discharge authority directed separation under other than honorable conditions...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05791-10

    Original file (05791-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 March 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 | CY2010 | 08241-10

    Original file (08241-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 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. On 25 November 1950, you were again convicted by SPCM of UA from your unit for a period of three days and sentenced to 30 days confinement, a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00740-09

    Original file (00740-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Naval - Records, sitting in executive session, considered your |... application on 28 October 2009. On 13 October 1964, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to unfitness. by the Board... .

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 07274-09

    Original file (07274-09.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 June 2010. 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...