Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05338-10
Original file (05338-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

TAL
Docket No: 5338-10
4 February 2011

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 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 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 reenlisted in the Navy on 11 October 1985 after more than
four years of prior honorable service. On 18 June 1991, you were
convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of bribery. The
sentence imposed was forfeiture of pay, reduction in paygrade and
a bad conduct discharge (BCD). On 19 October 1992, 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 a SPCM. Accordingly, your application has been
denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be
furnished upon request.

The Board believes that you may be eligible for veteran's
benefits that accrued during your first period of service.
Whether or not you are eligible for benefits based on this period
of service is a matter under the cognizance of the Department of
Veterans Affairs (DVA). If you have been denied benefits, you
should appeal that denial under procedures established by the
DVA. I have enclosed a copy of your DD 214 that covers your
first period of service.

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,

\y

W. DEAN PFEI
Executive Di

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11427-10

    Original file (11427-10.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. 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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05928-07

    Original file (05928-07.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 the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.You reenlisted in the Navy on 7 July 1967 after almost three years of honorable service. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04633-10

    Original file (04633-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 January 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 | CY2007 | 07629-07

    Original file (07629-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 July 2008. your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. About two months later, on 22 March 1968, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for a f our day period of UA. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04594-09

    Original file (04594-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 March 2010. On 20 June 1983, you were convicted by SPCM of a four year and eight month period of UA from your unit. 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 | 13226-09

    Original file (13226-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 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. The ADB found that you committed misconduct and recommended that you be separated with an OTH discharge.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11377-10

    Original file (11377-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 July 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 | 03003-10

    Original file (03003-10.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. A year later, on 28 November 1969, you were convicted by SPCM of a 268 day period of UA. On 2 March 1970 you submitted a written request for remission of the BCD and to be issued a general discharge.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06352-10

    Original file (06352-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 March 2011. Subsequently, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. 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 | 04245-09

    Original file (04245-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 March 2010. On 29 April 1965, your commanding officer forwarded your case concurring with the Boards’ findings and recommendation that you receive an undesirable discharge by reason of unfitness. 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.