Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07302-07
Original file (07302-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

JRE
Docket No. 07302-07
1 July 2008

 

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 19 June 2008. 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.

The Board found that you enlisted in the Marine Corps on 21 June
1999. You were absent without authority from28 September 1999
to 28 February 2001, a period of 475 days. You were discharged
under other than honorable conditions on 13 April 2001, in
accordance with your request for discharge for the good of the
service in lieu of trial by court-martial for the aforementioned
period of unauthorized absence.
The Board could not find any indication in the available records
that you were unfit for duty by reason of physical disability
that was incurred in or aggravated by your service in the Marine
Corps. It noted that even if you had been unfit for duty, you
would not have been entitled to referral to the disability
evaluation system, as your discharge for the good of the service
would have taken precedence over disability processing.
Accordingly, and as you have not demonstrated that it would be
in the interest of justice for the Board to upgrade your
discharge, 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.

Sincerely,

\s

W. DEAN PFE
Executive D

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01431-01

    Original file (01431-01.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. You were discharged on 19 February 1999, by reason of a condition, not a disability, interfering with your performance of duty. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03509-00

    Original file (03509-00.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 In addition, the Board considered the advisory 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 material error or injustice. name was on the list for promotion co Gunnery Sergeant Selection Board...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04780-00

    Original file (04780-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 August 2001. The Board noted that the issue of treatment and compensation for the recurrence and/or deterioration of your condition which occurred following your release from active duty is a matter withing the purview of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), rather than the Department of the Navy, absent evidence which demonstrates that you were unfit...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03505-00

    Original file (03505-00.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 April 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 | CY2008 | 01802-08

    Original file (01802-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 October 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. 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 | 07751-07

    Original file (07751-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You were sentenced to be discharged from the Marine Corps with a bad conduct discharge. You were separated from the Marine Corps with a bad conduct discharge on 24 February 1971, upon completion of appellate review. 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 | 00485-10

    Original file (00485-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 November 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. 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 | CY1998 | 03933-98

    Original file (03933-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitkd in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In any event, as you were discharged from the Marine Corps on 23 October 1970, by reason of unfitness, you would not have been entitled to disability evaluation even if you had suffered from a condition considered disabling by the Department of the Navy. Consequently, when applying for a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02149-08

    Original file (02149-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 October 2008. You were released from active duty on 17 March 2006, and discharged from the USMCR on 6 December 2006 at the expiration of your enlistment. 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 | 10131-07

    Original file (10131-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 August 2008. After careful and conschentious consideration of the entire record, the Board found] that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establith 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...