eee eee mee UP
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 5. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1oG1
- ARLINGTON, VA 22204-24390
BC .
Docket No:. 00154-14
6 November 2014
pear
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
navai 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 4 November 2014. The names and votes of the
members of the panel wiil 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 ail
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 30 August 1965. You received four
noniudicial punishments (NJP’ s} for the following violations
being in an unauthorized absence (UA) for one day, causing a
Gisturbance, wearing an improper uniform, dereliction of duty,
and failure to obey a lawful order. On 23 October 1969, ‘you
were convicted by special: court-martial (SPCM) of being UA for
315 days. You were sentenced to 4 forfeiture of $600, reduction
in pay grade, six months confinement at hard labor, and a bad
conduct: discharge (BCD). After appellate review you were So
@ischarged on 13 January 1971. - .
‘The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentiaily mitigating factors, such as
your record of service and desire to upgrade your discharge.
Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not
sufficient to warrant relief in your case because of the
seriousness of your repeated misconduct. 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 within one year from the date of the Board’s
decision. New evidence is evidence’ not previously considered by
the Board prior to taking its decision in your case. In this
regard, it is important to keep jin 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
Fxecutive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3463 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 November 2014. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case. 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 | NR6427 14_Redacted
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together ae ele EL material submitted in support thereof, your husband’s naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and polici s BR three-member panel of the Board for Correc e sessi at ] After careful and conscie 1 entire record, the Board found t evi e cl Ss insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice Your ‘husband enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR067 14
A three-member panel of the Board for correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 November 2014 The names and votes of tne 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 wit! Consequently, when...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5880 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 June 2015. After applying these guidelines to the evidence in the case, the Board was not able to substantiate the existence of PTSD in your case. 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 | NR6429 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 November 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. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10651-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 August 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. In this regard, an RE-4 reenlistment code is required when an individual is discharged for misconduct and is not recommended for retention.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5421 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 May 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. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01716-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 October 2008. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 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 | NR3503 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 | NR3047 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 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. In this regard, an RE-3C reentry code is authorized when a Marine is ‘discharged at the expiration of their term of active obligated service and is not...