DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
ES
Docket No: 6343-14
11 May 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 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 and began a period of active duty
on 14 November 1975. You served for about one year and three
months without disciplinary incident, but during the period from
17 February to 28 October 1977, you were convicted by special
court-martial (SPCM) and received two nonjudicial punishments
(NJP) for unauthorized absences totaling 45 days, failure to
obey a lawful order on two occasions, and disrespect.
Subsequently, administrative discharge action was initiated for
convenience of the government due to creating an administrative
burden to the command due to minor military or disciplinary
‘Tene emeiessreseet =< F
infractions and having performance which is non-contributory
to unit readiness and mission accomplishments due to below
average performance evaluations. You were so discharged on
11 November 1977.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your period of satisfactory service and desire to upgrade your
discharge. Nevertheless, based on the information currently
contained in your record, the Board concluded these factors were
not sufficient to warrant an upgrade of your discharge given
your misconduct which resulted in SPCM and two NUPs.
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 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.
Sinceyely,
ROBERT J. O'NEILL
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5268 14
aA three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 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 | NR2519 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. Your request for discharge was granted and on 29 December 1977, you received an other than...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07523-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 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 | NR7235 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 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. You were also convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of 284 days of UA and sentence to forfeitures of pay, confinement for 60 days, reduction to pay grade...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03533-10
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 June 1977 you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. 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 | NR5367 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 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 | 05042-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 March 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 | 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 | CY2014 | NR4553 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 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 | NR5021 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 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...