DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
BUG
Docket No: 979-13
23 October 2013
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 22 October 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 ari
support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes,
regulations and policies. The Board also considered the report
of the Naval Discharge Review Board dated 25 May 1971, and an
entitlement to awards summary dated 10 December 2012, copies of
which are attached.
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.
You reenlisted in the Navy on 21 March 1977 after more than
three years of prior honorable service. Your record is
incomplete, but you received nonjudicial punishment on two
occasions for a 16 day period of unauthorized absence and other
unknown offenses. On 21 March 1977, you were released from
active duty and transferred to the Naval Reserve with a general
characterization of service.
Character of service is based in part on conduct marks assigned
on a periodic basis. Your conduct mark average was 2.86. A 3.0
conduct mark average was required for a fully honorable
characterization of service.
In its review of your application, the Board carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, prior
honorable service, and current desire to upgrade your discharge.
However, the Board concluded that your discharge should not be
changed due to your misconduct and insufficiently high conduct
mark average. You are advised that no discharge is
automatically upgraded due merely to the passage of time or post
service good conduct. In view of the above, your application
has been denied. The names and votes of the members o£ 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 LnjUSsL.Les.
Sincerely,
\o Roane
W DEAN PFEILF
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 00051-03
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 October 2003. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a recharacterization of your service because of your repetitive periods of UA, which resulted in a court-martial conviction, and since your conduct average -was insufficiently high to warrant a fully characterization of service. Consequently, when applying for a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10392-02
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. An average of 3.0 in conduct was required at the time of your separation for a fully honorable characterization of service. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is existence of probable on the applicant to demonstrate the material error or...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 04298-12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 March 2013. 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 conciuded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change in your characterization of service given your poor...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05234-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 March 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 | CY2013 | NR2801-13
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. You were discharged under honorable conditions based on your conduct mark average. At the time of your service, a conduct average of 4.0 was required for a fully honorable characterization of service.
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 | CY2002 | 08750-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 June 2002. 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 the evidence and materials submitted were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 11089-07
Your allegations of error and © reviewed in accordance with administrative pC procedures applicable to the proceedings of this ntary material considered by the Board consisted of ion, together with all material submitted in support naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and conscientious consideration of the entire bard found that the evidence submitted was to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. On 7 September 1973 you received nonjudicial punishment...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03387-07
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.On 27 February 1975, you reenlisted in the Marine Corps at age 28 after a prior period of honorable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03387-07
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.On 27 February 1975, you reenlisted in the Marine Corps at age 28 after a prior period of honorable...