Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02516-09
Original file (02516-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

 

SUN
Docket No: 02516-09
28 January 2010

 

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 26 January 2010. 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 Corps and began a period of active
duty on 22 October 1966 at age 18. You served without incident
for over two years until 20 January 1969, when you were convicted
by summary court-martial of 19 days of unauthorized absence (UA).
On 1 December 1969, you were convicted by special court-martial
of 202 days of UA, which ended in your apprehension. You were
sentenced to confinement at hard labor, a forfeiture of pay,
reduction in paygrade, and 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, and Vietnam service. Nevertheless, the Board found that
these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization
of your discharge given your record of two courts-martial
convictions for periods of UA totaling over seven months.
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 | CY2009 | 04679-09

    Original file (04679-09.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 March 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 | CY2009 | 03289-09

    Original file (03289-09.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. Your request for _ discharge was granted and on 14 March 1980, you received an other than...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02201-09

    Original file (02201-09.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. On 31 December 1968 you were again convicted by SPCM of an 87 day period of UA and sentenced to confinement at hard labor for six months and a bad conduct discharge (BCD). Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01398-09

    Original file (01398-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, his naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. However, the convening authority suspended your BCD for a period of 12 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 injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06268-10

    Original file (06268-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 March 2011. On 4 February 1969, you were again UA from your unit until you were apprehended one 28 June 1969, by the Federal Breaual of Investigation (FBI), in McClure, Pennsylvania, a period of 138 days. 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 | CY2007 | 04031-07

    Original file (04031-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 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. On 5 November 1965 and 3 March 1967, you received two more NUJP’s for a four-day period of UA and another period of UA.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03697-08

    Original file (03697-08.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. Your request for discharge was granted and on 25 March 1976, you received an other than honorable discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01135-10

    Original file (01135-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 November 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. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your record of one NJP...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02544-09

    Original file (02544-09.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. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your record of NUP, conviction by SPCM for periods of UA totaling over six months, and the fact that you were given a opportunity to earn a better characterization of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12900-09

    Original file (12900-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 August 2010. On 21 September 1973, after appellate review, you received the 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.