DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 26370-5100 .
TIR
Docket No: 7579-08
12 June 2009
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, 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 June 2009. The names and votes of the
members of the panel will be furnished upon request. 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.
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 26 February 1982 after nearly 18
years of prior honorable service. You continued to serve without
disciplinary incident until 13 October 1982, when you received
nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for a one day period of unauthorized
absence (UA). About eight months later, on 2 June 1983, you
received NUP for two specifications of failure to obey a lawful
order. On 16 August and again on 5 December 1984 you received
NOP for five periods of UA totalling 36 days.
On 6 February 1985 you were convicted by summary court-martial
(SCM) of two periods of UA totalling 45 days and sentenced to a
reduction in paygrade and a $200 forfeiture of pay. On 25
October 1985 you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM)
of two periods of UA totalling 163 days, failure to go to your
appointed place of duty, wrongful appropriation, and breaking
restriction. You were sentenced to a bad conduct discharge
(BCD) .
During the period from 31 October 1985 to 28 May 1986 you were in
a UA status on two occasions for 190 days. On 28 October 1986,
the BCD was approved at all levels of review and on 12 December
1986 you were so discharged.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your prior honorable service and desire to upgrade your
discharge. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were
not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your BCD because
of the seriousness of your repetitive and lengthy periods of UA
which resulted in four NJPs and two court-martial convictions.
Accordingly, your application has been denied.
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,
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01317-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 October 2010. The sentence imposed was confinement for four months, forfeiture of pay, and a bad conduct discharge (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 | CY2009 | 02611-09
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 | CY2007 | 07529-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 May 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. About four months later, on 2 November 1984, you were convicted by SPCM of a 48 day period of UA and sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 63...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08594-07
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 23 March 1984, you enlisted in the Navy at age 22. On 11 March 1985, you began another UA that...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03450-01
You were sentenced On 27 July 1983 you were again convicted by paygrade E-2, and a $1,500 The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and immaturity, of UA do not justify a BCD. factors and contention were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of your frequent and lengthy periods of UA, which resulted in three court-martial Given the circumstances of your case, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 04055-12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 February 2013. The discharge authority directed the execution of your BCD. records .
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08188-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 July 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 | CY2014 | NR494 14
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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10148-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 July 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 | CY2009 | 02686-09
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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...