q 5427-14/
11094-89
7 November 2014
in reference to your application for correction of your
late eee s naval ‘record paraMan to the provisions of Tit
ite
ion of Naval
red your
Records, sitting in executiv e
d votes of the
ea
application on 28 October 201 T
members of the panel will be furnished upon request. Your
allegations of error and inju ice 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 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 on 21 January 1963. He served for nine months without
disciplinary incident, but during the period from 10 September
1963 to 8 June 1967, he received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) on
three occasions and was convicted by special court-martial (SPCM)
on two occasions. His offenses were being absent from his
appointed place of duty, failure to obey a lawful order,
disrespect, disobedience, and two periods of unauthorized absence
(UA) totalling 131 days. He was also UA on another oc asions for
17 days for which he did not receive di li n
roo
0
Fh
Subsequently, he was processee for separation by reas
misconduct due to frequent involvement of a1, 1
with military authorities. “The di
undesirable discharge by reason of
1967, he was so separated.
The Board, .in its review of your husband's entire record and your
application carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors,
such as your desire to upgrade his discharge because you believe
t-traumatic
abion you
heless, the Board
to warrant
rge because of his
repeated misconduct and lengthy periods of UA which resulted in
five punitive actions. Finally, there is no evidence in the
record, and your submitted none to support your belief.
Accordingly, your application has been denied.
because you believe that he was
stress disorder. It also consi
provided in support of your requ . Neve
concluded these factors were not sufficien
h
It is regretted thatthe 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.
In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a
presumption of regularity attaches to all official record
Consequently, when applying for a correction of an offici
record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the
existence of probable material error or injustice.
Ss.
a
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08496-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 June 2010. 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 ali material submitted in support thereof, your late husband's naval record, and applicable statutes,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10343-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 September 2003. 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 26 October 1966 you were convicted by SPCM of a 67 day period of UA and were sentenced to confinement at hard labor for six months, a $342...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11738-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 August 2011. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your late husband's 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01628-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 November 2009. your application, together with all Material submitted in support thereof, your late husband’s naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your late husband's discharge because of the seriousness of his misconduct and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04389-09
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all Material submitted in support thereof, your late husband’s naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. About six months later, on 8 January 1969, he received NUP for a nine 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 | NR764 14_Redacted
Although your application was not filed in a time Board found it in the interest of justice to wai limitations and consider your application on its three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 January 2015. After consulting with legal counsel, you lected to present your case to an administrative discharge board — (0 94...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01099-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Na-1 Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 July 1999. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your husband's naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. On 23 April 1969 the commanding officer recommended your husband be issued an undesirable discharge by reason of unfitness.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02008-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 December 2008. 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 13 April 1962 you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of absence from your appointed place of duty and sentenced to hard labor for...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8403 13
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 OF injustice. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant vecharacterization of your husband’s discharge because of his repeated and lengthy periods of UA which resulted in three SPCMs, and since his conduct average was insufficiently hign to warrant a fully honorable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05407-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 February 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. On 4 February 1964, you received NUP for UA from your unit.