Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10716-10
Original file (10716-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

 

REC
Docket No: 10716-10
18 August 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 17 August 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 on 28 February 1990. On 24 January
1991, you received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for being absent
from your appointed place of duty, dereliction of duty, and
making a false official statement. On 24 April 1991, you were
convicted at a special court-martial (SPCM) of failure to go to
your appointed place of duty, being disrespectful in language
toward a petty officer, disobeying a lawful order, disobeying a
written order, willfully causing damage to military property,
wrongful use of marijuana, and wrongful possession with intent to
deceive a military identification card. You were sentenced to a
forfeiture of $750, reduction in pay grade, confinement at hard
labor for 80 days, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD). The
discharge authority directed the execution of your BCD. On 8
October 1992, after appellate review, you were so discharged.

The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and
overall record of service. Nevertheless, the Board found that
these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization
of your discharge given your record of one NUP and conviction by
SPCM of serious offenses. 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,

L !
W. DEAN PFE
Executive Ditec

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08038-10

    Original file (08038-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Rh three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 April 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 16 January 1993, after appellate review, you were so discharged.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05796-10

    Original file (05796-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 March 2011. On 14 June 1979, you received NUP for being disrespectful toward you a chief petty officer on two occasions, and failure to obey a written regulation. On 17 February 1983, after appellate review, you received the BCD.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09060-10

    Original file (09060-10.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 19 July 1991, you received NUP for assaulting a female Marine.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10690-10

    Original file (10690-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 August 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03541-10

    Original file (03541-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00021-10

    Original file (00021-10.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 September 2010. On 30 August 1989, you received NJP for UA Erom your appointed place of duty. 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 | 02589-09

    Original file (02589-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, gitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 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. The discharge authority directed the execution of your’ BCD.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10118-10

    Original file (10118-10.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 July 2011. The discharge authority directed the execution of your BCD. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the, burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existencetof probable material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 12428-10

    Original file (12428-10.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 August 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 | 02686-10

    Original file (02686-10.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. 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 ifijuetice. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...