Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 05661-09
Original file (05661-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX TRG
WASHINGTON DG 20370-5100 | Docket No: 666i- 09

19 June 2009

 

 

 
 

This is in reference to
naval record pursuant to the provi
States Code section 1552.

 

soe

BR three-member pan
Records, sitting i

el of the Board for Correction of Naval

n executive session, considered your
Your allegations of error and

applidation on 17 June 2009.
ordance with administrative

injustice were reviewed in acc
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

ideration of the entire

idence submitted was
obable material

arine Corps on 8 July 1954 at age 20 with
On 8 Jume 1955 you were

prior service in the Amy National Guard.
convicted by a special court-martial after a guilty plea of
of uniform items of another Marine valued

wrongful appropriation

at. about $80. The court sente to forfeitures of pay,

confinement at hard labor for and a bad conduct
suspended for

discharge. However,
June 1955 the Board

a probationary peri
of Review affirmed the findings of guilt an

court-martial.

need you

in connection with the court-martial conviction, on 92 June 1955,

you were assigned 1.0 mark in conduct. On 31 July 1955 while in

confinement you were assigned a mark of zero in conduct. Upon

completion of confinement, you were returned to duty and served
igsued a general

ina satisfactory manner until you were
discharge under honorable conditions on 10 March, 1958 at the
expiration of your enlistment as extended for your period of lost

time.
characterization of

the regulations
As indicated you

fied for an honorable
ion of an enlistment ,
k of 4.9 in conduct .

In order to be qual3
service at the expirat

required an average mar
were assigned low marks in conduct following your court-martial
conviction and during your period in confinement. Accordingly,
your average mark in conduct at the time of discharge was
properly computed as being 3.7.

In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors, such as your period of good
service and contentions, in effect, that you have been a good
citizen for many years and that the court-martial was set aside
and that therefore you should not have been assigned the low
marks in conduct. The Board found that these factors and
contentions were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of
your general discharge given the nature of your offense to which
you pled guilty. As indicated, there is no evidence in the
record that the court-martial was set aside. The only action
taken was that the execution of the bad conduct discharge was
suspended on probation for six months. The Board concluded that
the assignment of adverse marks in conduct was supported by the
record and, therefore, the discharge was proper as issued and no
change is warranted.

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 | CY2008 | 05013-08

    Original file (05013-08.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 March 2009. You enlisted in the Navy on 10 September 1957 at age 17 and immediately began a period of active duty. your conduct averag average of 3. separation for a fully h The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, i itigating factors, such as carefully weighed all potentially mi 10d of satisfactory service, desire to upgrade duct, and the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03720-02

    Original file (03720-02.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 December 2002. 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 and applicable statutes, regulations, thereof, your naval record, and policies. Consequently,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10496-06

    Original file (10496-06.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 1 May 1967. The court sentenced you to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03225-02

    Original file (03225-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 September 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Your conduct marks average was 2.0. such as your prior honorable In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, service and your contention, in effect, that you have...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 06531-99

    Original file (06531-99.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. The bad conduct discharge was issued on 20 May 1960. forfeiture of all pay and allowances, The court sentence you to Tn its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, limited education, low score on the aptitude test and your...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07620-02

    Original file (07620-02.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 May 2003. 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 | CY2001 | 05591-00

    Original file (05591-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The record shows that on 6 March 1995 the U. S. you began appellate leave After your release from confinement, and remained in that status until the dishonorable discharge was Navy- issued. Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the proceedings and set aside the finding of guilty to the charge of disrespect A majority of the court but affirmed the remaining findings. 1996, the Court of Criminal Appeals again set aside your conviction of disrespect, once again found, on a split...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | NC9804002

    Original file (NC9804002.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. The Board found that these factors and contentions were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your 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 | CY1998 | 04002-98

    Original file (04002-98.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. The Board found that these factors and contentions were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given the frequency of your misconduct and especially the last two periods of absences which resulted in the general court-martial conviction. Consequently, when applying...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12366-09

    Original file (12366-09.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 September 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...