DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
JDR
Docket No: 5277-14
1 June 2015
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.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 15 May 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, began a period of active duty on
28 February 1974, and served without disciplinary incident for
about 10 months. However, on 26 December 1974, you received
nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for 33 days of unauthorized absence
(UA) .
Your record shows that, on 25 September 1974, you were diagnosed
as having an immature personality with aggressive features and a
tendency to project problems onto others. . Subsequently, a
medical board was held on 27 January 1975, and recommended you
for separation by reason of unsuitability.
Although the discharge documentation is not in your record, it
appears that the medical board’s recommendation was approved
because the separation authority directed a general discharge by
reason of a physical disability that existed prior to entry on
active duty. On 6 March 1975, you were so discharged.
The Board, in its review of your application and record
(although incomplete), carefully weighed all potentially
mitigating factors, such as your record of service and desire to
upgrade your discharge. It also considered your post service
conduct and assertion that your medical condition should have
been considered at the time of discharge. Nevertheless, based
on the information currently contained in your record, the Board
concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant
recharacterization of your discharge, given your substandard
performance and the seriousness of your misconduct, which
resulted in NUP. Finally, with regard to your assertion, the
Board noted that despite your medical condition, your
performance was substandard and you were unresponsive to the
leadership and support of your superiors and therefore, your
characterization of service could have been the same.
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 | 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 | CY2008 | 03508-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 February 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7208 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. 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 | CY2014 | NR6356 14_Redacted
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. Finally, the Board considered your assertion of PTSD in light of the Secretary of Defense’s...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Thu Feb 01 13_04_27 CST 2001
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 September 1999. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Thu Feb 01 11_59_57 CST 2001
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 September 1999. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2015 | NR2814 15_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 April 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. The punishment imposed at your 14 March 1979 NJP was reduction to paygrade E-4, which was suspended for six months.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7031 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 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. However, on 18 December 1973, you began a 167-day period of unauthorized absence (UA) until you were apprehended and returned to military authority...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2015 | NR1536 15_Redacted
tatute of limitations and consider your application on its A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, Sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 May 2015. Subsequently, you submitted a written request for a honorable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for four periods of UA totalling 239 days. On 21 February 1975, your request was granted and the commandina officer was directed to issue you an other than honorable | discharge by...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR568 14_Redacted
Although your appli cation was not filed in a timely manner, the Board found it in the interest of jus t ice to waive the statute of limitations and consider your ~pplication on its merits _ A three - member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in execut ive session, considered your application on 3 February 2015 . Regarding your claim of PTSD, the Board may only consider assertion of PTSD when an applicant Rresents clear evidence that the PTSD is service connected...