Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05997-02
Original file (05997-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FORCORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
ANNEX

NAVY 

2 

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

S

CRS
Docket No: 
13 December 

5997-02
2002

Your allegations of error and

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 14 November 2002.
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 that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice.
The Board found that you enlisted in the Marine Corps on 26
August 1970.
were convicted.by a summary court-martial of an unauthorized
absence of 28 days.
convicted by civil authorities of breaking and entering.
court sentenced you to confinement for a year.
On 24 February 1972 an administrative discharge board recommended
that you be separated with an undesirable discharge by reason of
misconduct due to civil conviction.
After review by the
discharge authority,
approved and on 7 June 1972 you received an undesirable
discharge.
In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and
immaturity.
However, the Board concluded that these factors were
not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge,
given the seriousness of the civil conviction and your

Subsequently, on 1 October   1971 you were
The

The record reflects that on 24 February 1971 you

the recommendation for separation was

The names and votes of the members

Accordingly, your

unauthorized absence of almost a month.
application has been denied.
of the panel will be furnished upon request.
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.
In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a
presumption of regularity attaches to all official records.
Consequently,
record,
existence of probable material error or injustice.

when applying for a correction of an official naval

the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the

Sincerely,

W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02562-02

    Original file (02562-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 July 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. On 22 June 1973 the commanding officer recommended that he be The record reflects that on 14 July 1969 he On 4 February 1970 he was evacuated On 21 September 1972 he was The court sentenced him to five years separated with...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06320-01

    Original file (06320-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    request for discharge was granted and your commanding officer was directed to issue you an undesirable discharge. Prior to submitting this request for discharge, you On 10 March 1972 The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully considered all mitigating factors, such as your youth and immaturity, service in Vietnam, and your contention that because of your personality disorder you could not adjust to duty in the United States after your tour of Vietnam. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03910-02

    Original file (03910-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    November 1973 you were convicted by SPCM of four periods of UA totalling 566 days. On 10 April 1974 the discharge authority directed period of UA. an undesirable discharge by reason of misconduct due to civil conviction.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08444.07

    Original file (08444.07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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, after two failures to appear in court, you were convicted of DUI on 14 June 1972. On 20 June 1972, you received NUP for 27 days of UA.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08444-07

    Original file (08444-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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, after two failures to appear in court, you were convicted of DUI on 14 June 1972. On 20 June 1972, you received NUP for 27 days of UA.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01298-09

    Original file (01298-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 December 2009. , 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. Your request for discharge was granted and on 19 December 1972, you received an other than honorable discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 02157-10

    Original file (02157-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 30 January 1969, shortly after being released from confinement, you began another period of UA that was not terminated until you were apprehended on 8 April 1969, On 19 May 1969 you were again UA for a three day. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05652-07

    Original file (05652-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 Marine Corps on 8 February 1971 at age 20. Subsequently, your request for...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05828-01

    Original file (05828-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 February 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. discharge. However, the Board found the evidence and materials submitted were not sufficient to warrant favorable action given your lengthy period of UA.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 03990-98

    Original file (03990-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 July 1999. 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...