Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 03862-03
Original file (03862-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

SRB
Docket No: 03862-03
30 October  2003

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.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 28 October 2003.
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this
Board.
of your application,
support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes,
regulations and policies.

Documentary material considered by the Board consisted

Your allegations of error and

together with all material submitted in

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 Naval Reserve on
24 June 1982 at age 22.
period of extended active duty.

On 20 July 1982 you began a 36 month

You then served without incident until 31 January 1984, when you
were convicted by special court martial  
unauthorized absence totaling about 116 days, missing movement
You were sentenced to a
and wrongful possession of marijuana.
bad conduct discharge (BCD),
confinement at hard labor for four
months forfeiture of $397 per month for four months and reduction
to pay grade E-l.

(SPCM) of two periods of

On 11 March 1984 you departed on appellate leave.
On 11 March
1985, upon completion of appellate review, you received the BCD.

The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors such as your youth and
immaturity.
However, the Board concluded that given your
lengthy period of unauthorized absence, missing movement and
drug abuse, the BCD was proper and appropriate.
your application has been denied.
members of the panel will be furnished

Accordingly,
The names and votes of the

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.
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.

it is important to keep in mind that

In this regard,

Sincerely,

Executive Di



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03867-09

    Original file (03867-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 April 2010. On 18 March 1985, you were convicted by Special court-martial (SPCM) of UA from your unit for a period of 121 days and missing ship’s movement. 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 | CY2009 | 11653-09

    Original file (11653-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 August 2010. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01450-09

    Original file (01450-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 December 2009. During the period from 16 May 1983 to 23 April 1984, you had three periods of UA totaling 295 days. 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 | CY2001 | 05699-01

    Original file (05699-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 December 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your disciplinary The Board found record, especially the special court-martial conviction for a lengthy period of unauthorized...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05034-06

    Original file (05034-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    OS A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 November 2006. 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. 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 | CY2010 | 08348-10

    Original file (08348-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 April 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. “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 | CY2010 | 05290-10

    Original file (05290-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 February 2011. On 1 November 1983, you were again convicted by SPCM of two instances of UA that totaled a period of 226 days. 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 | CY2010 | 01897-10

    Original file (01897-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 November 2010. The discharge authority directed the execution of your BCD. 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 | CY2010 | 08115-10

    Original file (08115-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 April 2011. On 24 February 1987, after appellate review, you received the BCD. 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 | CY2006 | 02466-06

    Original file (02466-06.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 reenlisted in the Navy on 30 September 1981 after four years of prior honorable service. The...