~~ . ee = - z
tM GB, GCUUR THU Dr Puree. ues Too4
ARLINGTON, VA, 22204-2480
SON .
Docket No; 5128-14
22 January 2015.
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. .
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
6 January 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
Boaré. 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
3 February 1969. On 13 November 1969, you received nonjudicial
punishment (NOP) for unauthorized absence (UA). On 24 November
1970, you were convicted by. special court-martial (SPCM) of two
specifications of UA totaling 275 days. You received a
forfeiture of pay, confinement, and a bad conduct discharge
(BCD). (On 25 January 1971, you waived your right to request
restoration to full duty, and received the BCD on 8 May 1998
after appellate review was completed.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your record of service and desire to upgrade your Gischarge. It
also considered your assertion that your in-service diagnosed
emotional immature personality disorder had not been considered
during your court martial conviction. Nevertheless, the Board
concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant
recnaracterization of your discnarge given your NOP and SPCM
conviction. Regarding your assertion, the Board noted that the
severity of your misconduct outweighed the mitigations of your
diagnosed personality disorder. accordingly, your application
“has been denied.
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are guch 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 making its decision in your 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.
Sincerel
ROBERT J. O' NETL
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5593 14_Redacted
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 30} S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 iad: Hoo SEOs Docket No: 5593-14 1° F aya" f 12 February AOL'S RK three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 February 2015. The BCD was approved at all levels of review and on 26 October 1969, you were 50 discharged The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR494 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 | NR7371 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 July 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 | NR510 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. Subsequently, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR13277 14
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with ali 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 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 | CY2008 | 00690-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 November 2008. The BCD was subsequently suspended for six months. 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 | NR2085 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 February 2015. However, two months later, on 26 August 1969, you were convicted by SPCM of a 60 day period of UA. 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 | NR13277 14_Redacted
A three-member’ panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, ‘considered your application on 6 January 2015. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision 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 | 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 | NR5464 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 June 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. Subsequently, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.