DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
FOS. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
| - TIR
‘ . , ‘ “Docket No: 3944- 13
°25 March 2014
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 25 March 2014. The names and votes of the
members of the panel will be furnished upon request. 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 and began a period of active
duty on 12 October 1966. You served for about seven months
without disciplinary incident, but during the period from 17. May
1967 to 16 June 1969 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on
three occasions for two periods Gf unauthorized absence (UA)
totalling 26 days, absence from your appointed place of auty. and
failure to obey a lawful order.
On 8 May 1969, after undergoing: a medical evaluation, you
admitted to wrongfully using amphetamines over -a past seven month.
period, specifically, intravenous use twice during the week and
up to five times daily during weekend abuse.
- Subsequently, in June 1969, you were processed for an
administrative separation by reason of misconduct due to drug.
abuse. After waiving your procedural rights, your commanding
officer recommended discharge under other than honorable ~
conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. However, .
on 24 June 1969, you began another ‘period of UA. Nonetheless, on
8 July 1969, the discharge authority approved the recommendation
for discharge and directed separation under other than honorable
conditions by reason of misconduct, and on 10 July 1969 while in
a UA status, you were so discharged.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your desire to upgrade your discharge, Vietnam service, and
assertion that you were not aware of the seriousness of your drug
related offenses. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these
factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your
discharge because of the seriousness of your repetitive
misconduct which resulted in four NJPs and drug abuse. Further,
. you were given an opportunity to defend your actions, but waived
‘your procedural right. Finally, there is evidence in the record
that is contrary to your assertion. Accordingly, your
application has been denied. | .
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,
ak. Aa
ROBERT D.~2SALMAN
Acting Executive Director.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 04904-06
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 on 22 March 1966 at age 19. Although no disciplinary action was taken for...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR5286 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 May 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient Co establish the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR7012 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 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 | CY2006 | 02466-06
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 on 30 September 1981 after four years of prior honorable service. The...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07490-09
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. The record does not reflect the disciplinary action taken, if any, for this 56 day period of UA. 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 | CY2013 | NR2630-13
Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your | application on 19 February. Because you requested discharge in lieu of trial, you avoided the possibility of a punitive discharge and confinement at hard labor. 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 | CY2013 | NR4883 13
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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3141-13
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701-5, COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 - ARLINGTON, VA 22204-24906 : TIR
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR2648-13
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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval _ record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3535-13
- 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,. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade your discharge and assertion that you were tpid that your discharge would be upgraded six months after your separation. Consequently, when applying for a...