DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 §. COURTHOUSE RD SUITE 1004
ARLINGTON VA 22204-2490
BAN
Docket No.NRO8350-13
22 September 2014
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of titie 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 28 August 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 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 29 January 1970. After eight months
of service, you were diagnosed by a health professional as being
emotionally unstable. Therefore, you were recommended for type
warranted by service record separation due to unsuitability. The
separation authority approved the recommendation and on 1 October
1970, you received a general discharge and an RE-4 (not
recommended for retention) reenlistment code.
Character of service is based, in part, on conduct marks assigned
on a periodic basis. Your conduct mark average was 2.5. A 3.0
conduct mark average was required for a fully honorable
discharge.
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 in six months your
Docket No.NRO8350-13
discharge would be automatically upgraded to a honorable
characterization of service. Nevertheless, the Board concluded
these. factors were not sufficient to warrant changing your
characterization of service due to your insufficiently high .
conduct average. You are advised that no discharge is upgraded
automatically due merely to the passage of time or post service
- good conduct. Accordingly, your application has been denied. The
names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished
upon request .
.Tt is regretted that ,the circumstances of your case are such that
yfavorable action gannot be taken. You are entitled to have the
“Board reconsider ‘its, decision upon submission of new evidence
within one year from the date of the Board's decision. New
evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior
to making its decision in this case. 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 J. O'NEILL
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR7582 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 August 2014. Characterization of service is based, in part, on trait 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 | CY2014 | NR2049 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 October 2014. You are advised that no discharge is upgraded due merely to the passage of time or post service good conduct. 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 | NR2910-13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change in your characterization of service given your NUP,...
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 | CY2014 | NR10256 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 September 2014. service, since Sailors who have committed misconduct normally receive other than honorable discharges. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official haval record, the burden is on,the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR5883 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 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. 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 | 10952-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 July 2011. However, the Board concluded that your discharge should not be changed due to your short period of service and insufficiently high overall trait mark average. 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 | NR2677-13
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. 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 | NR8932 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 September 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10761-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your , application on 20 August 2009. 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. On 1 September 1972 and 1 March 1973, _ you received an adverse mark in military behavior.