DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY.
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 —
CRS ee
‘Docket No: 1391-13
21 February 2014
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 20 February 2014. 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. poiscier
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. , : Hot
The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy on 21 August 1973.
Your record is incomplete, however,’ you received nonjudicial.
punishment on four occasions and were convicted by a special
court-martial of larceny and wrongful appropriation, abserice
from your appointed place of ‘duty, two periods of unauthorized
absence (UA) totaling 76. days, disrespect, and disobedience ofa
lawful order. You. received a’ discharge under other than |
honorable conditions on 13 August 1976 pursuant to your request
for discharge for the good: of the service in lieu of trial by
court-martial, for three perseds of UA totaling 388 days.
In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, overall
record of service, and the contention that your head injury
caused your misconduct, but found those factors insufficient to
warrant corrective action in your case. The Board concluded
that your service was properly characterized as a discharge
under other than honorable conditions given the seriousness of
the offenses. In addition, the Board believed that considerable
clemency was extended to you when your request for discharge was
approved since, by. that action, you avoided the possibility of a-
Federal conviction, confinement at hard labor and a punitive
discharge. Further, the Board concluded.that you received the
benefit of your bargain when your request for discharge was
granted. Finally, there is no evidence in your record to
support: your contention, and you submitted no such evidence.
Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and
votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon
aia laaale
It is requested 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 | CY2013 | NR4120 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 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. Your request for discharge was granted on 4 February 1977.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR9307 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 November 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 | CY2014 | NR04500 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 November 2014. 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 | CY2014 | NR4500 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 November 2014. Five months later, on 11 July 1978, you were convicted by a special court-martial (SPCM) of two periods of UA totaling 78 days, and was sentenced to a $530 forfeiture of pay, reduction in pay grade, confinement for two months and a suspended bad conduct discharge (BCD). Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4986-13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 January 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. As a result of this action, you were spared the stigma of a court-martial conviction and the potential penalties of a punitive discharge...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR1837-13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 January 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 | CY2007 | 08438-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 August 2008. 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. Your request for discharge was granted and on 6 March 1975 you received an other than honorable discharge for the good of the service in lieu of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3686 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 April 2014. On 20 June 1977 a panel of the Naval Discharge Review Board {NDRB}, convened under the Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP) and upgraded your undesirable discharge to general under honorable conditions. the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your misconduct that resulted in an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR6317 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 then requested a discharge under other than honorable (OTH) conditions for the good of the service to avoid trial by court- martial for a UA...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3537-13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your . | 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 error or injustice.