Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00730-08
Original file (00730-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

RDZ:ecbh
Docket No. 00730-08
11 March 2009

 

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 10 March 2009. 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 enlisted in the Marine Corps on 17 April 1963 for a term of
four years. Unfortunately you served less than three years of
which nearly one year was lost time made up of several periods
of unauthorized absence (UA) and confinement at hard labor.
More specifically on 20 October 1964 you were convicted by
special court-martial (SPCM) of nearly 80 days of UA. Shortly
after serving a period of four months of confinement at hard
labor you began another period of UA that lasted nearly 50 days.
For this offense you received a second SPCM and received a
sentence that included a bad conduct discharge and four months
of confinement. When you were released from the brig and
awaiting appellate review of your second conviction you again
went UA on two separate occasions. You received your bad
conduct discharge on 22 March 1966.

In its review of your application the Board concluded that in
view of your lengthy periods of UA, which occurred close in time
to each other, and your subsequent misconduct while awaiting
appellate review your discharge was proper as issued and should
not be changed now as a matter of clemency.

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.

Sincerely,

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04031-07

    Original file (04031-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 January 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. On 5 November 1965 and 3 March 1967, you received two more NUJP’s for a four-day period of UA and another period of UA.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00121-01

    Original file (00121-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel for the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 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. The Navy Board of Review affirmed the findings and the sentence on 29 February 1963 and the supervisory authority reduced the confinement and...

  • 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 | 05796-10

    Original file (05796-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 March 2011. On 14 June 1979, you received NUP for being disrespectful toward you a chief petty officer on two occasions, and failure to obey a written regulation. On 17 February 1983, after appellate review, you received the BCD.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 09384-02

    Original file (09384-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 August 2003. You received NJP on 22 February 1992 for a 17 period of unauthorized absence (UA) and were awarded restriction and extra duty for 4 5 days and a $550 forfeiture of pay. However, the record does not reflect that any disciplinary action was taken for this period of UA.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03391-08

    Original file (03391-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 March 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 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 error...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 03984-12

    Original file (03984-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 February 2013. On 20 June 1970, you were convicted by a special court-martial (SPCM) of willfully disobeying a lawful order from a commissioned officer and two incidents of assaulting a fellow Marine. 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 | CY2008 | 09185-08

    Original file (09185-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 August 2009. 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 10 May 1982, you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of failure to go to your appointed place of duty, two periods of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07821-07

    Original file (07821-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You were sentenced to a reduction in paygrade, confinement at hard labor, and a forfeiture of pay. On 16 January 1980, you were convicted by a second SPCM of two specifications of UA totaling 186 days and assault with a deadly weapon. 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 | CY2004 | 06248-04

    Original file (06248-04.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, his 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 Navy on 13 March 1979 at age 18. On 21 October 1982 you received the BCD after...