Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03985-08
Original file (03985-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

Docket No: 3985-08
25 March 2009

 

 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your
late father’s 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 29 January 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 father’s 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 your father enlisted in the Navy on 5
December 1952. He was convicted by summary court-martial on 31
July 1953 of a 10 day period of unauthorized absence (UA), and by
general court-martial on 18 January 1954 of an 83 day period of
UA, and failure to obey a lawful order.

He was convicted by general court-martial on 28 July 1955 of a
185 day period of UA that was terminated by apprehension,
desertion, and failure to obey a lawful order. The court
sentenced him to confinement at hard labor for one year,
forfeiture of all pay and allowances, reduction in rate, anda
bad conduct discharge. He was separated from the Navy with a bad
conduct discharge on 4 May 1956.

The Board did not accept your contention to the effect that your
father’s discharge should be changed based on the decision in the
in the case of Giles v Secretary of the Army. As indicated in
the documents you submitted, that case pertains to discharges
based on compelled urinalysis testing administered for the sole
purpose of identifying drug abusers. It has no relevance to the
issue of the propriety of your father’s discharge.
The Board concluded that a bad conduct discharge was appropriate
in your father’s case in view of his repeated acts of misconduct,
and that you have not demonstrated that it would be in the
interest of justice to upgrade the discharge. 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 | CY2008 | 08942-08

    Original file (08942-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 July 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 | CY2008 | 08015-08

    Original file (08015-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with ail material submitted in support thereof, your late father’s naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of his discharge because of his repeated periods of UA during wartime, court-martial convictions which resulted in BCD, and his continued misconduct after being awarded a BCD. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 08438-98

    Original file (08438-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 April 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 After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 12497-08

    Original file (12497-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your | application on 21 October 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02611-09

    Original file (02611-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 December 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. 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 | 07579-08

    Original file (07579-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 June 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. 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 | 05252-08

    Original file (05252-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 April 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. 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 | CY2001 | 06967-01

    Original file (06967-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    6967-01 17 December 2001 Dear This is in reference to your naval record pursuant to the States Code, Section 1552. application for correction of your provisions of Title 10, United Your allegations of error and injustice were A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, 12 December 2001. reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. You were then advanced to TM2 (E-5) in...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 04274-08

    Original file (04274-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 February 2009. Shortly thereafter, you received NUP on 12 July 1963, for UA; on 24 July 1962, you were convicted at a summary court-martial for UA and failure to obey a lawful order; and on 19 December 1963, you received NUP for UA and failure to obey a lawful order or regulation by being outside of pounds without authority. Consequently, when applying for a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00325-09

    Original file (00325-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 REC Docket No: 00325-09 9 November 2009 This is in reference to your application for correction of your . 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 27 November 1981, you received NJP for another period of UA.