Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08758-08
Original file (08758-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

BUG
Docket No: 8758-08
25 June 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 24 June 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 and medical records,
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 entered active
duty in the Marine Corps on 2 October 1981. On 13 May 1982,
you entered an unauthorized absence (UA) status, which was not
terminated until 17 July 1986, when you were apprehended by
civil authorities for armed robbery, a period about 1,526 days.
You were convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to eight
years in prison. You were in hands of civil authorities until
your discharge on 9 December 1986. You received an other than
honorable (OTH) discharge for misconduct (civil conviction),
and were assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
The Board, in its review of your entire record, carefully
weighed all potential mitigation, such as your youth, and
contention that you were falsely accused and convicted.
Nevertheless, the Board concluded that these factors were not
sufficient to warrant changing your OTH discharge because of
your lengthy periods of UA and serious misconduct. In view of
the above, your application has been denied. The names and
votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon
request.

Tt 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 | 10070-08

    Original file (10070-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 July 2009. record, the Board found that 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 or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04023-11

    Original file (04023-11.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. As a result of this action, you were spared the stigma of a court-martial conviction and the potential penalties of a punitive discharge and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12426-09

    Original file (12426-09.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. 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 12 August 1987, the discharge authority directed an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00019-10

    Original file (00019-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 September 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. On 14 May 1974, you were returned to military authority by the Allegheny County Jail, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07444-09

    Original file (07444-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 June 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 | CY2008 | 00061-07

    Original file (00061-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 December 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. Subsequently, the discharge authority concurred with the ADB and directed that you receive an undesirable discharge due to misconduct on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09319-09

    Original file (09319-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 June 2010. While UA, you were convicted in civil court for assault and robbery. 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 | 03204-09

    Original file (03204-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 March 2010. Shortly thereafter, on 19 December 1973, you began another period of UA that was not terminated until you were apprehended by civil authorities and charged with armed robbery. On 6 March 1974, while in custody of civil authorities, you were you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to the civil conviction.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 02555-11

    Original file (02555-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 November 2011. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06453-01

    Original file (06453-01.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 February 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. the disciplinary action taken, paygrade E-l and a $50 forfeiture of However, the record does not reflect if any, for these periods of UA. Consequently, when...