DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
DJC
Docket No. NR11617-14
28 Apr 15
This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval
record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 1552.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, considered your application on
27 April 2015. 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 that the evidence submitted was insufficient to
establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. You
petitioned the Board for Correction of Naval Records seeking the
reinstatement of advancement to E-4, and the credit of 32 days leave.
A review of our files revealed the following: On 19 May 1977, you
received an NUP for violation of article 92, and you were awarded
reduction in rank which was suspended for 90 days. On 1 July 1977,
the suspension of your reduction in rank was vacated due to you being
derelict in the performance of your duties, and you were reduced from
Ic3 (E-4) to ICFN (E-3). You were reinstated to E-4 effective 16 Oct
77. On 7 July 1978, you received an NUP for violation of article 89
and 90, and you were awarded reduction in rank which was suspended for
6 months. On 20 July 1978, the suspension of your reduction in rank
was vacated due to you being derelict in the performance of your
duties, and you were reduced from IC3 (E-4) to ICFN (E-3). On 9
February 1979, you received an NJP for violation of article 86 and 87,
and you were awarded reduction in rank from ICFN (E-3) to ICFA (E-2).
On 23 February 1979, you received an NUP for violation of article 128,
and you were awarded reduction in rank from ICFA (E-2) to ICFR (E-1).
On 14 March 1979, you were discharged with an Honorable Discharge by
reason of unsuitability. Furthermore, your DD Form 214N (Report of
Separation from active duty) listed 30.5 days accrued leave paid.
Docket No. Nr11617-14
The Board's review shows that you did not provide any information
and/or evidence that would support the Board granting some level of
relief. Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and
votes of the members of 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 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.
Sincerply,
R ‘
Executive Director
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500594
I submitted my appeal on Jan. 06 2003, Document 2. My appeal was denied by the commander of Cruiser-Destroyer Group Twelve, Document 2, Page 4, in the USS Enterprise Commanding Officers endorsement (Document 2, Page 3) he stated that I did not have a reason for submitting my appeal late (sentence 1,2, paragraph 3). As of this time, the Applicant has not provided documentation for the Board to consider.
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501543
The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 930820: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had committed misconduct due to commission of a serious offense that such misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions.930920: Commanding Officer, USS ALABAMA (SSBN 731) (GOLD), concurs...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900427
After a careful review of the Applicant's post-service documentation, in addition to his official service record and supporting documentation, the Board voted unanimously to upgrade the characterization of service to “General(Under Honorable Conditions) ” as requested by the Applicant for equity reasons. Therefore, relief is granted.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by...
NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00109
My record of promotions showed I was generally a good service member. FIRST OFFENSE (Time in Service 2 years): After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).Issues 1 & 2: The applicant requested her discharge be upgraded to honorable based upon her observed and documented performance evaluations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090018476
However, on 11 March 1980, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separation - Enlisted Personnel). The applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows that on 27 March 1980 he was discharged with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-33b(1), by reason of misconduct - frequent...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR04500 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 November 2014. 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 applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00939-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 October 2011. 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. However, the record does not reflect the disciplinary action taken by civil authorities for this misconduct.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080013457
There is no indication in the applicants records that he was advanced beyond the rank/grade of PV2/E-2 during his active military service. Item 18 (Appointments and Reductions) of the applicants DA Form 2-1 shows the applicants ranks and dates of rank as follows: PVT/E-1, 9 May 1977; PV2/E-2, 10 November 1977; PVT/E-1, 7 March 1978; PV2/E-2, 1 March 1979; PVT/E-1, 28 September 1979; and PV2/E-2, 17 March 1980. Therefore, he is entitled to correction of his records to show he completed...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06151-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 April 2011. 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 served without disciplinary incident until 6 July 1978, when you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for absence from your appointed place of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4500 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 November 2014. Five months later, on 11 July 1978, you were convicted by a special court-martial (SPCM) of two periods of UA totaling 78 days, and was sentenced to a $530 forfeiture of pay, reduction in pay grade, confinement for two months and a suspended bad conduct discharge (BCD). Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record,...