DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
CRS
Docket No: 5759-09
25 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 20 October 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 Reserve on 2
September 1981. You received nonjudicial punishment on three
occasions and were convicted by a summary court-martial for
offenses that included three periods of unauthorized absence,
destruction of government property, failure to obey a lawful
order, disrespect, possession and consumption of alcohol while in
a restricted status, and drunk driving.
On 15 July 1986 a special court-martial convened and found you
guilty of two periods of unauthorized absence, failure to go to
appointed place of duty, disrespect, and incapacitation for duty.
The court sentenced you to confinement for 75 days, forfeiture of
$200.00 per month for six months, and reduction in pay grade to
E-1. You were honorably released from active duty on 21 November
1986 and assigned a reenlistment code of RE-4.
The Board carefully considered your desire to return to active
duty; however it was not persuaded that your reenlistment code
was assigned in error, or that its continued presence in your
record is unjust. The code is clearly warranted by your
extensive disciplinary record. Further, as you have not
established that your reduction to pay grade E-1 was erroneous or
unjust, there is no basis for correcting your record to show that
you were discharged in grade E-3. Accordingly, your application
has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel
will be furnished upon request.
be period of time lost from 15 July 1985 to 1 September 1986
Mich is shown in your DD Form 214 is erroneous. It should be
from 15 July 1986 to 1 September 1986, the period of confinement
from the sentence of your special court-martial. You should
contact Headquarters Marine Corps, Code MMSB. Quantico VA 22134
in order to have it administratively corrected.
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,
WD Deas ‘
WwW. aie
Executive r or
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09182-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval. 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. 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 | 12082-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 August 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with ali 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 | 05019-09
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 received the BCD after appellate review was complete. 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 | 08061-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 July 2009. 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 material error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00564-10
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 LIyUustice., You reenlisted in the Navy on 14 May 1984. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge, given your record of conviction by SPCM of drug abuse and misconduct. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01449-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03117-01
Petitioner's claim that his NJP of 28 April 1987 should be expunged because he was subsequently tried by SPCM for the same offense is without merit. Petitioner's disobedience constituted a d. Petitioner's claim that his SPCM conviction should be Petitioner's Petitioner erroneously Neither his NJP on 28 April With respect to the NJP of 28 April 1987, expunged because it is the result of his refusing the punishment of an unjust NJP is without merit. Accordingly, we recommend that...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11655-09
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. On 16 September 1960, after appellate review, you were separated with a 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00468-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 September 2010. The discharge authority directed the execution of your 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08426-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 June 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...