Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 12368-10
Original file (12368-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

BUG
Docket No: 12368-10
16 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 16 August 2011. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicabie 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 and entered active duty on 14
August 1953. You received nonjudicial punishment, a special
court-martial, and a general court-martial (GCM). Your
offenses included being derelict in the performance of your
duties, unauthorized absence (four specifications totaling 62
days), missing the movement of your ship, and wrongful
appropriation of an automobile. Your sentence at the GCM
included a bad conduct discharge (BCD). On 6 April 1956, after
appellate review, you received the BCD.
In its review of your application, the Board carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and
current desire for veterans’ benefits. However, the Board
concluded that your BCD should not be changed due to your
serious misconduct. You are advised that no discharge is
upgraded due solely to the passage of time or post service good
conduct. In view of the above, 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,

Syn fas

W. DEAN RR
Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11304-10

    Original file (11304-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    BR three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in. 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 material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00152-11

    Original file (00152-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    R three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval, Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 July 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 | 11629-10

    Original file (11629-10.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. On 30 March 1972 you were convicted by general court-martial (GCM) of a 160 day period of UA and sentenced to confinement at hard labor for seven months, a $525 forfeiture of pay, reduction to paygrade E-1, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD). Consequently, when applying for a correction of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11523-10

    Original file (11523-10.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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your NJP and GCM conviction of periods of UA totaling over 12 months. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04443-10

    Original file (04443-10.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 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00440-11

    Original file (00440-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    BR three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 October 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 | CY2011 | 02596-11

    Original file (02596-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, gitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 December 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 | 00476-10

    Original file (00476-10.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. Finally, the Board denied your request to be allowed to retire. On 15 August 2007, your appeal was denied and you were separated with a dismissal due to your conviction at a GCM.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11330-10

    Original file (11330-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all, material gubmitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. As a result of the NIS investigation, you were convicted by general court-martial (GCM) of five specifications of indecent assault against female Marines, peeping through a window of a Female Marine, looking into the bathroom of a female Marine, and unlocking a bathroom door and peeping...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11234-10

    Original file (11234-10.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...