Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06830-10
Original file (06830-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

RDZ:ecb
Docket No. 06830-10
17 September 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 9
September 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 Marine Corps on 18 October 1999 for a term of
four years. Unfortunately you only had a little less than two years
and five months of creditable service and were discharged with a bad
conduct discharge (BCD) pursuant to your conviction on 24 September
2001 by special court-martial for 127 days of unauthorized absence
(UA) that was terminated by apprehension. Prior to your
court-martial you. received nonjudicial punishment on two occasions
for UA’s of 16 days, 7 days and 30 days.

The Board concluded that in view of the seriousness of your offense
as well as the repetitiveness of your prior misconduct your discharge
was both legally and equitably proper and should not be changed now
as a matter of clemency.

Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and votes
of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

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,

\ SNP

Executive Didneck or

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10616-09

    Original file (10616-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03043-09

    Original file (03043-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 January 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, the Board concluded - these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of your misconduct...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11655-09

    Original file (11655-09.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. On 16 September 1960, after appellate review, you were separated with a 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 | CY2009 | 08933-09

    Original file (08933-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 June 2010. You submitted a written request for an other than honorable (OTH) discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for the foregoing periods of UA totaling 173 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 error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10376-09

    Original file (10376-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 July 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 error...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06258-09

    Original file (06258-09.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. As a result, on 14 September 1976, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07613-10

    Original file (07613-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your misconduct that resulted in convictions by SCM and SPCM, charges being preferred to a court-martial for a periods of UA totaling over four months, and request for discharge. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04720-09

    Original file (04720-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 April 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 8 February 1984 you submitted a written request for an other than honorable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for the foregoing...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03289-09

    Original file (03289-09.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. Your request for _ discharge was granted and on 14 March 1980, you received an other than...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12405-09

    Original file (12405-09.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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization...