Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09662-08
Original file (09662-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

 

SIN
Docket No: 09662-08
24 August 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 18 August 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 the evidence submitted was insufficient
to establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice.

You enlisted in the Marine Corp and began a period of active duty
on 12 March 1989 at age 27. On 23 June 1989 you began a period
of unauthorized absence (UA) that lasted 465 days, ending with
your apprehension on 1 October 1990. On 21 November 1990, you
were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of that period of
UA and sentenced to confinement, a Forfeiture of pay, reduction _
in paygrade, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD). You received the
BCD after appellate review was completed.

The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, overall
record of service, and the reasons you stated that caused your |
UA. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors and reasons
were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your
discharge given your conviction by SPCM for a period of UA that
lasted over 15 wonths. 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,

W. DEAN PFEDSF
Executive Dikkec

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03537-08

    Original file (03537-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 February 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07353-09

    Original file (07353-09.pdf) 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09517-08

    Original file (09517-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 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. 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 | 03201-08

    Original file (03201-08.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 February 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 | 00406-08

    Original file (00406-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 August 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 sentence included confinement, forfeitures of pay, reduction in rank, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD).

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 04339-12

    Original file (04339-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 March 2013. Additionaily, you were counseled and warned that further misconduct could result in administrative discharge action. 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 | CY2008 | 06507-08

    Original file (06507-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 May 2009. On 28 March 1991 you received your fourth NJP for three periods of failure to,go to your appointed place of duty and were awarded a $800 forfeiture of pay, restriction for 30 days, and reduction to paygrade E-2. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09637-08

    Original file (09637-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval. -Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with ail 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 or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09065-07

    Original file (09065-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 October 2008. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your civil conviction and UA period lasting over 15 months. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4321 13

    Original file (NR4321 13.pdf) 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...