DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TAL
Docket No: 5290-10
3 February 2011
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of table 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 2 February 2011. 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 policiés.
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
26 November 1980 at age 20. On 12 October 1982, you were
convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of unauthorized absence
(UA) from your unit for a period of 86 days and missing ship's
movement. The sentence imposed was confinement for 30 days and
forfeiture of pay. On 1 November 1983, you were again convicted
by SPCM of two instances of UA that totaled a period of 226 days.
The sentence imposed was confinement for 90 days, forfeiture of
pay, reduction in paygrade to E-1l, anda bad conduct discharge
(BCD). On 21 May 1984, 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
resulted in two SPCMs and periods of UA that lasted over
10 months. 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,
\ Naan
W. DEAN PFEI
Executive Dir
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08241-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 April 2011. 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 November 1950, you were again convicted by SPCM of UA from your unit for a period of three days and sentenced to 30 days confinement, a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06291-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 March 2011. 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 | CY2010 | 08267-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 April 2011. 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 | CY2010 | 07375-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 March 2011. The sentence imposed was confinement for 30 days, hard labor without confinement for 30 days, restriction for 30 days anda forfeiture of pay. 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: v .
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05407-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 February 2011. 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 4 February 1964, you received NUP for UA from your unit.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05297-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 February 2011. On 29 July 1981, you were again convicted by SPCM of the forgoing period of UA and sentenced to 90 days confinement, forfeiture of pay and a bad conduct discharge (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 | 11984-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your , application on 10 August 2011. The sentence imposed wag confinement for 45 days, a forfeiture of pay and a bad conduct discharge (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 | 06268-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 March 2011. On 4 February 1969, you were again UA from your unit until you were apprehended one 28 June 1969, by the Federal Breaual of Investigation (FBI), in McClure, Pennsylvania, a period of 138 days. 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 | CY2010 | 07446-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 April 2011. 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 | CY2010 | 11427-10
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 a clemency discharge under the provisions of Presidential Proclamation 4313. 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.