Tomes omatersine tess ee BET MENT OF THE NAVY
ere -oar comnmeecriior 1 PAY AL Pers
Do we me = =
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
TUR
Docket No: 657-14
29 January 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 21 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 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
ijustice.
You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 20
March 1972. Less than three months later, during the period from
20 June to 21 August 1972, you received nonjudicial punishment
(NJP) on three occasions for disrespect, absence from your
appointed place of duty, failure to go to your appointed place of
duty, breaking restriction, and larceny of $135 from a fellow
shipmate.
On 7 March 1973 you were referred for a psychiatric evaluation at
which time you were assessed with a severe immature personality
and drug abuse as evidenced by your wrongful use of marijuana and
lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD). You were found to be free from
mental disease and/or disorder and recommended for an immediate
administrative separation. About a month later, on 4 April 1973,
you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of failure to
obey a lawful order, larceny, wrongful appropriation of a $1,800
automobile, escaping custody, failure to go to your appointed
place of duty, and two periods of unauthorized absence (UA)
totalling 17 days. You were sentenced to confinement for six
months, a $1,020 forfeiture of pay, and a bad conduct discharge
(BCD). On 17 July 1973, you submitted a written request for
immediate execution of the BCD, stating in part, that you were
sick of and could not make it in the service. Subsequently, the
BCD was approved at all levels of review and on 20 June 1974, you
were discharged.
‘the Hoard, in its review ot your entire record and application
_carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
; your desire to upgrade your discharge, youth, and assertions of a
mental illness while serving in the Navy and being awarded a Good
Conduct Medal (GCM). Nevertheless, the Board concluded these
factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in your case
because of the seriousness of your repetitive misconduct, which
included drug use/abuse, Regarding your assertion of being
awarded a GCM, be advised that The notation on your Certificate
of Discharge or Release from Active Duty (DD Form 214), does not
show that you received a GCM, but only states the starting date
for the next period for the award. Finally, the record reflects
that you were free from any mental disease and/or disorder, which
is contrary to your assertion of suffering from a mental illness
while serving on active duty. 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. .
ROBERT J. O’ NEILL
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR12036 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 August 2015. 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 assertion that you were found guilty of only one theft. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08125-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 May 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. On 12 April 1973 you received NJP for two periods of absence from your appointed place of duty, disobedience, and a five day period of UA. November 1976, you submitted a written request for an undesirable discharge in order...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03858
A 29 September 1972 medical record entry, reports the positive urinalysis report and referral for evaluation by mental health. There is no evidence of record that the vet had pronounced neuropsychiatric symptomology or evidence of psychosis while in service.” He appealed to the Air Force Discharge Review Board in November 1976 and June 1980, both times his applications for upgrade were denied, concluding: “no evidence to substantiate that the applicant was a drug addict, that the Air Force...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Wed Feb 14 13_34_15 CST 2001
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL. He noted that He The Board specifically noted In its review of your application the Board conducted a thorough review of both service and medical records, and the post-service medical records you provided. The Board also could not ignore the multiple notations With regard to your psychiatrist’s opinion that you suffered from PTSD, a paranoid personality disorder and a possible organic brain syndrome, the Board noted that like the other...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Wed Feb 14 14_01_05 CST 2001
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL. He noted that He The Board specifically noted In its review of your application the Board conducted a thorough review of both service and medical records, and the post-service medical records you provided. The Board also could not ignore the multiple notations With regard to your psychiatrist’s opinion that you suffered from PTSD, a paranoid personality disorder and a possible organic brain syndrome, the Board noted that like the other...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4944 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 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. 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 | NR2400 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 March 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 Board also considered your assertion that the GCM sentence was.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 13180-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 September 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3901 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 April 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 | CY2007 | 03706-07
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 February 2008. Subsequently, your request for discharge was granted, and on 11 May 1973 you received an undesirable discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of the seriousness of your repetitive misconduct and lengthy periods of UA, which also resulted in your request for discharge.