Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08147-10
Original file (08147-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
JRE

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
Docket No. 08147-10
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. In
this regard, the Board found that you were discharged from the Marine
Corps on 27 May 1977 by reason of unsuitability due to your inability
to expend effort constructively. There is no indication in the
available records that you were unfit for duty by reason of physical
disability that was incurred in or aggravated by your 18 days of
active duty service in the Marine Corps. In addition, the Board
noted that separation code GMB1-A and Department of Defense form
number DD-256-MC, which appear on your DD Form 214 dated 27 May 1977,
did not then and do not now indicate that you were discharged for
being a “drug dealer”. 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,

ROBERT D. SALMAN
Acting Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08383-10

    Original file (08383-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 June 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. On 30 August 1977, 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 | 08631-10

    Original file (08631-10.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. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08359-10

    Original file (08359-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 May 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. On 3 January 1977, you received NJP for an unknown period of UA.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00234-11

    Original file (00234-11.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. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08315-10

    Original file (08315-10.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. Your request for discharge was granted and on 6 September 1978, you received an OTH discharge for the good of the service. 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 | CY2011 | 00670-11

    Original file (00670-11.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, reguiations, and policies. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of your misconduct, and request for discharge. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04936-01

    Original file (04936-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on'19 December 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Doc,umentary 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,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04631-10

    Original file (04631-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 January 2011. The ARB recommended that you should be immediately separated from the Marine Corps. 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 | 06098-10

    Original file (06098-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 March 2011. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with aol material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Further, the Board concluded that you received the benefit of your bargain with the Marine Corps when your request for discharge was granted and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05052-10

    Original file (05052-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 June 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...