Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 12495-10
Original file (12495-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

 

TAL
Docket No: 12495-10
19 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 and began a period of active duty on 29
September 1976 at age 18. On 19 May 1980, you were convicted by
special court-martial (SPCM) of unauthorized absence (UA) from
your unit for a period of 266 days. The sentence imposed was
confinement for one month, a reduction in paygrade and a bad
conduct discharge (BCD). On 12 May 1981, you received the BCD
after appellate review was complete.

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 the seriousness of your misconduct that
resulted in a SPCM and a period of UA that lasted over eight
months. 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,

   

: p
W. DEAN Asa
Executive pha

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 12505-10

    Original file (12505-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 August 2011. On 29 March 1953, you were convicted by summary court-martial (scM) of unauthorized absence {UA) from your unit for a period of 78 days and missing ship’s movement. 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 | 01537-11

    Original file (01537-11.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. On 9 August 1973 you were ‘convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of three periods of UA totalling 27 days and sentenced to confinement at hard labor for two months, a $408 forfeiture of pay, and a bad conduct discharge {BCD}. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11469-10

    Original file (11469-10.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 found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given the seriousness of your misconduct that resulted in two NUPs, a SPCM and periods of UA totaling over 11 months. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04668-10

    Original file (04668-10.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 February 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. On 19 October 1987 you received NUP for a 44 day period of unauthorized absence (UA).

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03346-10

    Original file (03346-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, Sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 January 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 | CY2011 | 01165-11

    Original file (01165-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with ali material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Your record, however, does not reflect the court action or sentence for the foregoing charge. 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 | 11685-10

    Original file (11685-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 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 | 08267-10

    Original file (08267-10.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. 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 | 05803-10

    Original file (05803-10.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. On 15 October 1979, you received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for unauthorized absence (UA) from your unit. 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 | 02243-11

    Original file (02243-11.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 November 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...