DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
RDZ:ecb
Docket No. 05532-10
23 November 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 16
November 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.
You enlisted in the Navy on 6 May 2003 for a term of four years.
Unfortunately you only served a little less than one year and three
months and were discharged for misconduct with an other than
honorable discharge (OTH). Specifically you requested that Naval
authorities issue you an OTH rather than court-martial you for 45
days of unauthorized absence (UA). Clearly you wanted to avoid the
very real possibility of receiving a bad conduct discharge and a
substantial period of confinement at hard labor that could have been
handed down by a court-martial. Your request for an OTH was granted
and you were so discharged on 17 September 2004.
In its review of your application the Board concluded that in view
of seriousness of your lengthy UA as well as your willingness to
accept an OTH rather than complete your enlistment your discharge
waS proper as issued and should not be changed now as a matter of
clemency. The Board believed that you received considerable
leniency when Naval authorities decided to forego court-martial
proceedings and instead issue you an OTH.
Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and votes
of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
é
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,
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07150-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 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. 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 | CY2008 | 06084-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 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. Your record shows that you served on active duty in the Navy from 13 January 1987 until 12 January 1989 when you were honorably discharged.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07610-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 April 2010. The Board found that you entered active duty in the Navy on 15 July 1986. 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 | CY2012 | 07417 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 October 2012. Unfortunately you only served a little over one year and five months when you were administratively separated with an other than honorable discharge (OTH) due to your 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05196-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, congidered your application on 31 March 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. On 1 March 1985 you submitted a written request for an other than honorable (OTH) discharge in order to avoid trial by court- Martial for the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05219-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 March 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03658-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 January 2010. As a result of this action on 5 February 1986 you were discharged under other than honorable conditions. 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 | 01854-10
A three-member panel Of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 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 ~olicues . After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10686-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 July 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. On 15 December 1970, you submitted a written request to be discharged for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial for the periods of UA.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11275-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...