Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08815-08
Original file (08815-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

 

CRS
Docket No: 8815-08
8 December 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 29 October 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 Navy on 19 September
1973, and executed a 12 month extension agreement on 19 November
1973. You received three nonjudicial punishments for offenses
that included an unauthorized absence of 29 days, disrespect,
failure to obey a lawful order, dereliction of duty, and absence
from appointed place of duty. You were separated from the Navy
by reason of substandard performance of duty on 20 December 1976,
with a general discharge.

The Board did not accept your unsubstantiated contention to the
effect that you were improperly retained on active duty beyond
the expiration of your active service obligation. It concluded
that your service was properly characterized as under honorable
conditions in view that your extensive disciplinary record, and
that you have not demonstrated that it would be in the interest
of justice for the Board to upgrade your discharge to honorable.
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 | CY2006 | 07898-06

    Original file (07898-06.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 January 2008. You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 29 April 1969 for three years and served in an excellent manner until you were honorably discharged on 18 June 1971 for the purpose of reenlisting. The record shows that you were then an unauthorized absentee from 16 March to 24 August 1977, a period of about 158 days.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05237-07

    Original file (05237-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 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. The Board found that these factors and contentions were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your multiple lengthy...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 00144-07

    Original file (00144-07.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 January 2008. On 20 December 1973 you received a fifth nonjudicial punishment, for absence from appointed place 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 or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03706-07

    Original file (03706-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 February 2008. Subsequently, your request for discharge was granted, and on 11 May 1973 you received an undesirable discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of the seriousness of your repetitive misconduct and lengthy periods of UA, which also resulted in your request for discharge.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07324-07

    Original file (07324-07.rtf) 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.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 Navy on 29 December 1976 at age 19. As a result you forfeited $200 and placed...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02635-08

    Original file (02635-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 November 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 29 December 1972, you enlisted in the Navy at age 19.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05445-07

    Original file (05445-07.rtf) 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.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 17 November 1969. on 27 November 1970 you...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05923-07

    Original file (05923-07.rtf) 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.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 Marine Corps on 26 November 1973 at age 17. You were so discharged on 19 February...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07035-08

    Original file (07035-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 August 2008. Your request was approved by the discharge authority, and you received an undesirable discharge on 24 August 1973. 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 | 09683-07

    Original file (09683-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    .A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 November 2008. Characterization of service is based in part on conduct and proficiency averages computed from marks assigned on a periodic basis. 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.