DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1601
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
TIR
Docket No: 2403-14
13 April 2015
cor
This is in “réferencé 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 3i°-
March 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 30
August 1975. Your record reflects that during the period from 4
February to 13 May 1976, you received nonjudicial punishment
(NIP) on four occasions for two specification of dereliction of
duty, three specifications of disobedience, breach of the peace,
two specifications of disrespect, and two periods of absence from
your appointed place of duty.
You were subsequently processed for an administrative separation
by reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement of a
discreditable nature with military authorities. After consulting
with legal counsel, on 5 June 1976, you were discharged under
honorable conditions by reason of misconduct. At that time you
were not recommended for retention or reenlistment and assigned
an RE-4 reenlistment code.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your desire to upgrade your discharge and assertions of racism
and suffering the consequences of a general discharge which was
unjustly given to you. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these
factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case
because of the seriousness of your repetitive misconduct which
resulted in four NUPs. Finally, the Board noted that you were
‘“. fortunate to have received a géneral : discharge. because Sailors -
“with? a record of misconduct, such as -yours,, would normally -
receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions.
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. = Dos : ae
Sincerely,
ROBERT J. O’ NEILL
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR660 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 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. Nonetheless, your request was denied and the BCD was subsequently approved at all levels of review, and on 30 January 1976, you were so discharged.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04755-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 April 2010. Nevertheless, these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of the seriousness of your misconduct and your lengthy periods of UA from the Marine Corps which resulted in three NJPs and a SPCM. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the’ applicant to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07560-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 June 2009. 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 | NR5106 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 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 | NR5645 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 May 2015. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your record of service, desire to upgrade your discharge, and your assertion that you suffered a traumatic head injury while serving in the Marine Corps. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3116-13
A three- -~member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 February 2014.. On 30 November 1976 you received your ninth NJP for a six day period of UA. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02577-09
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 22 July 1977, you were notified that administrative discharge procedures were initiated and that you would receive a reenlistment code of RE-3C upon your separation. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4540 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 April 2015. Further, the Board concluded that you received the benefit of your bargain with the Marine Corps when your request for discharge was granted and should not be permitted to change it now. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01562-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 October 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. On 9 July 1976 you submitted a written request for immediate execution of the BCD.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01532-00
an ADB recommended you be issued an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct. discharged. 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.