DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
CRS
Docket No: 6287-09
20 July 2009
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant te 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 1 July 2009. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicabie 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 applicabie 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 4 May 1991. On
24 February 1993 you were convicted by civil authorities,
pursuant to your pleas of guilty, of first degree murder and
conspiracy to commit capital murder. The court sentenced you to >
confinement for life for murder and confinement for 20 years for
conspiracy to commit capital murder, with the sentences to run
concurrently.
On 20 April 1993 an administrative discharge board recommended
that you be separated with a discharge under other than honorable
conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a
serious offense. After review by the discharge authority, the
recommendation for separation was approved and you were
discharged on 15 June 1993 with a discharge under other than
honorable conditions.
In its review of your application, the Board carefully considered
your contention to the effect that you were innocent of the
charges. As noted above, you pleaded guilty to the charges. In
addition, the Board could not find any evidence in the available
records or your application which corroborates that contention. _
Accordingly, and as you have not demonstrated that it would be in
the interest of justice for the Board to upgrade your discharge,
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,
La
W. DEAN P
Executive Wi tor
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04313-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 September 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Finally, on 28 June 1993, CO, USS Merrill sent a letter-to the Commander, Bureau of Naval Personnel requesting the removal of the article 84 conviction and the repayment of $550.00 forfeited by Petitioner as a result...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06958-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 May 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. On % August 1975, the discharge authority directed that you receive an undesirable discharge due to civil conviction.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00561-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 September 2010. Subsequently, your case was forwarded, and on 14 June 1994, the discharge authority approved the recommendation for an OTH 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 | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00855
Specification 2: Larceny of gasoline on 960428 ($17.17). Specification 10: Larceny of ring on May96. Specification 12: Larceny of ring on May96 ($150.00).
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09699-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 June 2011. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 08411 11
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written application, enclosure (1), with this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected by showing that on 18 July 1986, he was issued an honorable characterization of service vice the other than honorable (OTH) discharge of record. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show that on 18 July 1986, he was issued an honorable characterization of service vice the OTH...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08861-08
2 three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 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. In October 1945, you were processed for an administrative discharge by reason of convenience of the government.
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 | CY2007 | 09947-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 November 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02352
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02352 INDEX CODE: 123.07 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The period of his service that was considered “lost time” be restored to his period of active service. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPWR evaluation is at Exhibit B. AFPC/JA indicated that even though the evidence clearly supports...