Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06275-10
Original file (06275-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

TAL
Docket No: 6275-10
16 March 2011

 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 ef 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 9 March 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 enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on

25 June 1985 at age 17. On 6 June 1988, you were convicted by
special court-martial (SPCM) of unauthorized absence (UA) from
your unit for a period of 203 days. The sentence imposed was
confinement for 30 days, forfeiture of pay, reduction in paygrade
and a bad conduct discharge (BCD). On 27 September 1989, 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, prior
honorable service, overall last period of service and the
character letters accompanying your application. 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 period of UA lasting over five
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,

ned

W. DEAN P
Executive reetor

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07375-10

    Original file (07375-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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 | CY2011 | 00920-11

    Original file (00920-11.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. The Board found that you received three nonjudicial punishments (NJP’s) for three periods of unauthorized absence (UA) totaling nine days, wrongful use of marijuana, and six instances of failing to go to your appointed place of duty (restricted muster}. Consequently, when applying for a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06035-10

    Original file (06035-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 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. 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 | CY2007 | 07775-07

    Original file (07775-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 June 2008. 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 material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08485-10

    Original file (08485-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 April 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,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04660-10

    Original file (04660-10.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. The sentence imposed was six months confinement, 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 probaple material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05198-10

    Original file (05198-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 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. You submitted a written request for a good of the service discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for the periods of UA.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07171-10

    Original file (07171-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 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. Between 14 March and 4 June 1978, you commenced three periods of UA, the first period lasting six days, the second period lasting 27 days, and the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 05736-11

    Original file (05736-11.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 November 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. Your request for discharge was granted and on 26 November 1971, you received an other than honorable discharge for the good of the service in...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11507-10

    Original file (11507-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 August 2011. You received the BCD on 5 January 1995 after appellate review was completed. 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.