Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12736-09
Original file (12736-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON BC 20370-5100

BAN
Docket No: 12736-09
26 August 2010

This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, 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 25 August 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 entered active duty in the Navy on 29 January 1980, and
served without any disciplinary incident until 27 May 1983, when
you were convicted at a general court-martial (GCM) for three
specifications of unauthorized absence (UA), totaling eight
months, and you were awarded a bad conduct discharge (BCD). In
addition, while you were in a UA status, you were arrested by
civil authorities for dealing in stolen property, were sentenced
to five years probation, and you were returned to military
jurisdiction. Therefore, on 2 April 1984, after appellate
review, you were separated with a BCD and an RE-4 reenlistment
code.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth and belief that enough time has elapsed to warrant
upgrading your discharge. Nevertheless, the Board concluded
these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization
of your discharge because of the frequency and seriousness of
your misconduct. Further, there is no provision of law or in Navy
regulations that allows for recharacterization of service due
solely to the passage of time. 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 | CY2009 | 12749-09

    Original file (12749-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 BAN Docket No: 12749-09 7 September 2010 This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552. 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. ...

  • 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 | CY2009 | 10747-09

    Original file (10747-09.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. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10742-09

    Original file (10742-09.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. However, the record does not reflect the disciplinary action taken, if any, for this period of UA. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 August 2010.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09573-09

    Original file (09573-09.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. It also considered your assertion of personal family matters occurring at the time you were serving in the Navy, which presumably resulted in your periods of UA. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11741-09

    Original file (11741-09.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. 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, based on the information currently contained in your record, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to...

  • 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 | 00287-10

    Original file (00287-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04218-09

    Original file (04218-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 February 2010. 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. 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 | CY2009 | 11653-09

    Original file (11653-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 August 2010. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence, of probable Material...