DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
REC
Docket No: 04031-12
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 21 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 reenlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on
11 September 1970, after serving over five years of honorable
service. On 16 December 1971, you received nonjudicial
punishment (NJP) for operating a vehicle in a reckless manner.
On 27 April 1972, you received NUP for reporting to watch 45
minutes late. On 13 November 1972, you received NUP for failure
to obey a lawful order, and failure to comply with a uniform
regulation. On 27 April 1973, you were convicted by a special
court-martial (SPCM) of being in an unauthorized absence (UA)
status for 147 days. You were sentenced to a forfeiture of
$300, reduction in pay grade, and confinement at hard labor for
three months. On 28 June 1973, you were notified that
administrative discharge procedures were initiated and that you
would receive a general discharge due to misconduct upon your
separation. On 11 July 1973, your commanding officer forwarded
his recommendation that you receive a general discharge by
reason of misconduct. The discharge authority directed a
general discharge. You were so Gischarged on 9 August 1973, and
assigned an RE-4 (not recommended for retention) reenlistment
code.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your prior honorable service and Vietnam service. However, the
Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant
any change in your characterization of service or reenlistment
code, given your record of three NUP’s, conviction by a SPCM of
misconduct and non-recommendation for retention. The Board also
noted that you were fortunate to receive a general discharge
since a separation under other than honorable conditions is
often directed when an individual is found to have committed
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 official
naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the
existence of probable material error or injustice.
Sincerely,
we. Doan
W. DEAN PF R)
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09930-09
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 6 July 1973, you received NUP for being UA for a period of 15 days. Your case was heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB), which voted two to one in favor of an other than honorable discharge.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 01648-12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 February 2013. 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. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 February 2013.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07240-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27:May 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06287-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 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. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given the seriousness of your...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07233-10
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. 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 | NR5117 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 June 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. You were so discharged on -27 June 1973.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 04062-12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 February 2013. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, his 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 | CY2009 | 06214-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 April 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06969-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 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. 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 | CY2009 | 01298-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 December 2009. , 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 of injustice. Your request for discharge was granted and on 19 December 1972, you received an other than honorable discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial...