DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
CRS
Docket No: 4830-09
18 October 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 9 September 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 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 29 July 1988.
On 9 December 2005 you were convicted by a summary court-martial
of improperly transporting a weapon, making a false official
statement, failure to obey a lawful order, and an unauthorized
absence. The court sentenced you to reduction to pay grade E-6,
forfeiture of two-thirds pay for one month, which was suspended.
On 31 July 2008 you were transferred to the Fleet Reserve in pay
grade E-6.
The Board found no merit in your request for reinstatement to
grade E-7. The Board did not consider that punishment unduly
harsh. In addition, the Board noted that it is precluded by law
from taking any action that would disturb the finality of a
court-martial. Although it may modify a sentence as a matter of
clemency, it concluded that clemency was not warranted in your
case. 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
récord, the burden is on’the applicant to demonstrate the
gexistence of probable material error or injustice.
4 af
Sincerely,
eecoats Maenelece,
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03059-09
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. Your request for discharge was granted and you received an other than honorable discharge for the good of service on 2 October 1981. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of your misconduct that resulted...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03027-09
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. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to.warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your record of three NUP’s and conviction by two SCM’s and one SPCM for serious misconduct. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07795-09
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. The Board has no authority to consider claims of legal error at a court-martial, and must limit its review to determining whether clemency is ‘warranted ‘in the sentence. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07689-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 August 2010. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant modifying the sentence imposed at your SCM. 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 | 05759-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 October 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. It should be from 15 July 1986 to 1 September 1986, the period of confinement from the sentence of your special court-martial.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02599-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was ansufficient to establish the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06867-06
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 6 November 2002, the Naval Clemency Board mitigated the dishonorable discharge to a bad conduct discharge. 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 | 12074-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 August 2010. On 2 April 1969, you then began a period of UA which lasted 96 days. Your request for discharge was granted and on 11 May 1970, you received an other than honorable discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02504-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 December 2008. As you have been previously informed the Board is prevented by law from reviewing courts-martial and must limit its review to determining if the court-martial sentence should be reduced as a matter of clemency. 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 | 01255-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 January 2003. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. However, the Board is prohibited by law from reviewing the findings of a court-martial and must restrict its review to determine if the sentence of the court-martial should be reduced as a matter of clemency. ...