DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
TUR
Docket No: 7273-13
18 August 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 12 August 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 Navy and began a period of active duty on 10
October 1962. You served for nearly a year without disciplinary
incident, but on 30 September 1963 and again on 12 February 1964,
you received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for two specifications
of sleeping on watch.
On 25 September 1964, you were released from active duty under
honorable conditions and transferred to the Naval Reserve. On 9
October 1968, at the expiration of your enlistment, you were
discharged under honorable conditions.
At the time of your separation, character of service was based,
in part, on conduct and overall trait averages which were
computed from marks assigned during periodic evaluations. Your
conduct average was 2.8, however, an average of 3.0 in conduct
was required for a fully honorable characterization of service.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your period of satisfactory service, desire to upgrade your
discharge, and assertion that your discharge was the result of an
officer over-reacting by treating you unfairly for a
nondisciplinary infraction. Nevertheless, the Board concluded
these factors were not,.sufficient to warrant recharacterization
', Of your discharge. because of your misconduct, which resulted in
two NJPs, and since your conduct average was insufficiently high
to warrant a fully honorable characterization of service.
Finally, there:is no evidence in the record, and you submitted >
none, to support 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,
TRS 52
ROBERT D. ASALMAN
Acting Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11044-06
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 Marine Corps on 18 Nay 1960 at age 18. You were sentenced to confinement at hard...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3738-13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session; considered your ‘application on 25 February 2014. Characterization of service is based in part on conduct marks assigned on a periodic basis. 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 | CY2006 | 11235-06
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 10 August 1964 at age 17. About seven months later, on 25 July 1967, you...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3140-13
Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 February 2014. On 14 July 1978 the discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed a general discharge by reason of unsuitability, and on 21 July 1978, you were so separated. -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 | NR5397 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 May 2014. At the time of your service, a conduct average of 3.00 was required for a fully honorable characterization of service. 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 | CY2007 | 02838-07
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 TJIR Docket No: 2838-07 24 January 2008 A three-member panel of the Boa Records, sitting in executive session, application on 23 January 2008. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative rd for Correction of Naval considered your Your allegations of error and regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Subsequently, you were notified of pending...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5445 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 December 2014. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with ail material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. You remained on active duty until 12 February 2003, when you were released under honorable conditions at the expiration of your enlistment,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8403 13
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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant vecharacterization of your husband’s discharge because of his repeated and lengthy periods of UA which resulted in three SPCMs, and since his conduct average was insufficiently hign to warrant a fully honorable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR2682-13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 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. At the time of your service, a conduct average of 4.0 was required for a fully honorable characterization of service.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10748-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 August 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. Nevertheless, the Board ,sconcluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant "recharacterization of your general discharge because of...