DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
EGA
Docket No: 11499-14
29 April 2015
dear >
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.
Although your application was not filed in a timely manner, the
Board found it in the interest of justice to waive the statute
of limitations and consider your application on its merits. A
three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, considered your application on
21 April 2015. 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
19 March 1971. You served without disciplinary incident until
10 December 1971, when you received nonjudicial punishment (NUP)
for multiple periods of unauthorized absence totaling 70 days.
As a result, you were recommended for an administrative
separation by reason of unsuitability due to character and
behavior disorder. On 9 February 1972, you were discharged with
a general characterization of service.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your desire to upgrade your character of service and assertion
of whiplash as a reason for your misconduct. Nevertheless, the
Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant
relief in your case, given the seriousness of your misconduct,
which included 70 days of unauthorized absence. Concerning your
assertion of whiplash as the reason for your misconduct, there
is no evidence in the record, and you submitted none to
substantiate your claim. 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 within one year from the date of the Board’s decision.
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 | CY2014 | NR4018 14
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 | CY2014 | NR2151 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 March 2015. , The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to upgrade your character of service and assertion of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a reason for your misconduct. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5128 14
A’ three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 January 2015. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03761-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 February 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. On 10 May 1971 an ADB recommended an undesirable discharge by reason of misconduct due to civil conviction.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6765 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 July 2015. 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. Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to a conviction by a Civil court.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3735 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, ‘sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 March 2015. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5327 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 May 2015. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5327 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 May 2015. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5845 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 May 2015. 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 | NR1807 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 March 2015. 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...