Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 02140-05
Original file (02140-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY


 p
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
 WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100         TRG
 Docket No: 2140-05 28 September 2005






,IMmuIhu-uImq”mqpI
 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 13 September 2005. 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 that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.
You were honorably discharged from the Army on 16 August 1974 after three years of active service. On 29 December 1976 you enlisted in the Navy for two years. During the period from 5 November 1977 to 21 February 1978 you received nonjudicial punishment on four occasions. Your offenses were assault, four periods of unauthorized absence totaling about 14 days, theft and five instances of disobedience.
Based on the foregoing record of misconduct, you were processed for an administrative discharge. At that time, you waived the right to have your case heard by an administrative discharge board in exchange for a recommendation for a general discharge. After review, the discharge authority directed a general discharge and you were so discharged on 18 May 1978.
On 6 August 1979 you enlisted in the Marine Corps without revealing your prior service in the Navy. On 12 September 1979 you were processed -for discharged due to your fraudulent enlistment. At that time, you also admitted to a civil conviction for possession of a controlled substances and having a concealed weapon. After review, the discharge authority directed
 a general discharge and you were so discharged on 21 September
1979.
In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors such as your prior honorable service and your desire for honorable discharges to improve your employment possibilities. The Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of either general discharge given your disciplinary record while in the Navy and your fraudulent enlistment in the Marine Corps. The Board concluded that the discharges were proper as issued and recharacterization is not warranted.
Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and votes of the members 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, 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.




























2
Sincerel

V
 W.       DEAN Executive D:
 k

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR2679-13

    Original file (NR2679-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 April 2014. 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 | CY2011 | 04217-11

    Original file (04217-11.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 2012. 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 | 00297-10

    Original file (00297-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 October 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 HOLLEIES . 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 | CY2008 | 00353-08

    Original file (00353-08.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 7 November 1979, you received a special court- martial (SPCM) and were found guilty of four specifications 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 | CY2001 | 00966-01

    Original file (00966-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel for the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 June 2001. 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 | CY2007 | 03387-07

    Original file (03387-07.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.On 27 February 1975, you reenlisted in the Marine Corps at age 28 after a prior period of honorable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03387-07

    Original file (03387-07.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.On 27 February 1975, you reenlisted in the Marine Corps at age 28 after a prior period of honorable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 09005-03

    Original file (09005-03.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 submit ed was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.You enlisted fi he Mar~i~ ~ro~ps u ~1 WIy ±9~ aL d~O ~1. Your request was denied and on 20 October...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11683-10

    Original file (11683-10.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. However, the record does not reflect the disciplinary action taken, if any, for this misconduct. 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 | 07179-10

    Original file (07179-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative ures applicable to the proceedings of this regulations and proced 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...