DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE RD SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON VA 22204-2490
BAN
Docket No: 02315-12
27 February 2013
This is 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 14 February 2013. 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 14 September 1970, and served
without disciplinary incident, until 3 June 1971, when you
received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for an unauthorized absence
in excess of 13 days. On 9 February 1971, you received a mental
health evaluation which deemed you unsuitable for service. Also,
during your medical evaluation, you self-admitted to drug use
prior to your entry into military service and wanted to be
separated. Therefore, you were recommended for separation with
an other than honorable (OTH) discharge due to misconduct. You
exercised your right to consult with counsel and an
administrative discharge board (ADB). The ADB voted 2 to 1 to
separate you with a general discharge. The separation authority
approved the recommendation and on 17 June 1971, you were
separated with a general discharge due to misconduct and an RE-4
reenlistment code.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth, and claim that you were told that you were being
separated due toa reduction in force vice misconduct. However,
the Board concluded these factors were insufficient to warrant
changing your characterization of service or your narrative
reason because of your misconduct. The Board also found that
your election to have an ADB was your best opportunity for
retention or a better characterization of service, in which you
already received and were granted a general discharge vice an OTH
characterization of service. Finally, the Board was unable to
find any evidence in your record to support your claim, and you
provided no such evidence. 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 inj USTLCE .
Sincerely,
\eertle
W. DEAN P cL
Executive Lrector
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 03522-12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 February 2013. You were recommended for separation with an other than honorable (OTH) discharge due to a pattern of 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 error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 03517-12
A.three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 February 2013. 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 | CY2012 | 02320-12
BR three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 February 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR801 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 October 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 02321 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 March 2013. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change to your characterization of service, due to your 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 error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 03556 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. Therefore, in May 1981, you received an ADB and it voted to separate you with an OTH 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 error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11254-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 August 2011. 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 | CY2012 | 02314-12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 February 2013. 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 | CY2011 | 00566-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, gitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 October 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 | CY2012 | 05213 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 March 2013. 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...