Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 05019-09
Original file (05019-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

TAL
Docket No: 5019-09
2 April 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 24 March 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 Navy and began a period of active duty on 8
August 1985 at age 18. On 9 November 1986, you received
nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for failure to obey a lawful order.
On 15 April 1988, you were convicted by special court-martial
(SPCM) of two instances of unauthorized absence (UA) £rom your
unit for a period of 63 days, wrongful use of cocaine and
disrespect toward a superior petty officer. The sentence imposed
was 90 days confinement, forfeiture of pay, reduction in paygrade:
and a bad conduct discharge (BCD). You received the BCD after
appellate review was complete.

The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and
overall record of service. Nevertheless, the Board found that
these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization
of your discharge given the seriousness of your misconduct that
resuited in a SPCM and periods of UA that totaled over two
months.

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,

Wy Duo

W. DEAN PFE
Executive D

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00807-10

    Original file (00807-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 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. # Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04755-09

    Original file (04755-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 April 2010. Nevertheless, these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of the seriousness of your misconduct and your lengthy periods of UA from the Marine Corps which resulted in three NJPs and a SPCM. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the’ applicant to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00105-10

    Original file (00105-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 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. »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 | 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 | 11162-09

    Original file (11162-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 August 2010. On 5 June 1974 you submitted a written request for immediate execution of the BCD. gConsequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the g@eistence of probable material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03926-09

    Original file (03926-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 April 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. You requested suspension of the BCD and restoration to earn an honorable discharge.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11385-09

    Original file (11385-09.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. You received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on two occasions for failure to go to your appointed place of duty and unauthorized absence (UA) from your unit for a period of four days. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01415-10

    Original file (01415-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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. On 25 June 1973 you received NUP for six periods of absence from your appointed place of duty and a one day period of UA.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06052-09

    Original file (06052-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 April 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 27 August 1954 you were so discharged.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04594-09

    Original file (04594-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 March 2010. On 20 June 1983, you were convicted by SPCM of a four year and eight month period of UA from your unit. 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.