Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07885-10
Original file (07885-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORERE

2 NAVY ANNEX Docket No. 07885-10
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 19 May 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 19 May
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 that the evidence submitted was insufficient to
establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.

You enlisted in the Navy on 5 July 1988. You underwent a
pre-separation physical examination on 29 March 1991 and were Eound
physically qualified for separation. You departed on appellate
leave shortly thereafter, and were separated from the Navy with a
bad conduct discharge on 15 June 1995 upon completion of the
appellate review of your conviction by special court-martial o£
larceny or a shaver and a diamond ring.

The available records do not establish that you were suffering from
a significant mental disorder when you committed the offenses which
resulted in your bad conduct discharge, or that you were unfit for
duty by reason of physical disability that was incurred in or
aggravated by you naval service. You would not have been entitled
to disability separation or retirement even if you had been unfit
for duty, because your special court-martial and bad conduct
discharge would have taken precedence over disability evaluation
processing. 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,

Ss

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08210-07

    Original file (08210-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 August 2008. You were separated from the Navy with a bad conduct discharge on 31 January 1997. 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 | 03931-07

    Original file (03931-07.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 May 2008. your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. You were separated from the Navy with a bad conduct discharge on 4 Februray 1982, upon completion of the appellate review of your conviction and sentence. Consequently, when applying for a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08095-02

    Original file (08095-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 October 2002. Documentary material considered by the Board 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04112-10

    Original file (04112-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    As your request for upgrade of your bad conduct discharge was denied by the Board on 22 October 1997, and you have not submitted any new material evidence of error or injustice in connection with that discharge, the Board limited its review to your request for correction of your record to show that you were separated or retired by reason of physical disability. You were separated from the Navy on 5 June 1981 with a bad conduct discharge upon the completion of the appellate review of your...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 04660-08

    Original file (04660-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 January 2009. 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. 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 | 07751-07

    Original file (07751-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You were sentenced to be discharged from the Marine Corps with a bad conduct discharge. You were separated from the Marine Corps with a bad conduct discharge on 24 February 1971, upon completion of appellate review. 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 | CY2006 | 10496-06

    Original file (10496-06.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 that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.The Board found that you enlisted in the Marine Corps on 1 May 1967. The court sentenced you to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08408-02

    Original file (08408-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of session, considered your injustice were reviewed in applicable to the proceedin consisted of your appli naval record records were lost. Documentary material considered by the Board together with all material submitted in support thereof, your s, regulations and policies. applyi g for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the : W. DEAN PFEIFFER Executive Director

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 11027-08

    Original file (11027-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 December 2008. Upon completion of the evaluation, you were given a diagnosis of a personality disorder, and recommended for administrative discharge. 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 | 04386-10

    Original file (04386-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...