Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00178-11
Original file (00178-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 REC
Docket No: 00178-11
17 October 2011

 

 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of Hitle 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 13 October 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 Marine Corps on 13 May 1981, at the age of
24. On 7 January 1983, you were convicted by a special court-
martial (SPCM) of being in an unauthorized absence (UA) status
for 325 days. You were sentenced to a forfeiture of $855,
reduction in pay grade, confinement for 75 days, and a bad
conduct discharge (BCD). The discharge authority directed the
execution of your BCD. On 5 March 1984, 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.
Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not
sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your

discharge given your record of a conviction by a SPCM of a ten
month period of UA. Accordingly, your application has been
denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel wiil 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,

\> Deak

W. DEAN PF
Executive rector

\

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08241-10

    Original file (08241-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 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 25 November 1950, you were again convicted by SPCM of UA from your unit for a period of three days and sentenced to 30 days confinement, a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06962-10

    Original file (06962-10.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 March 2011. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, injuries sncurred while on active duty, and belief that your offenses do not warrant a BCD. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08250-10

    Original file (08250-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 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 error...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00920-11

    Original file (00920-11.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. The Board found that you received three nonjudicial punishments (NJP’s) for three periods of unauthorized absence (UA) totaling nine days, wrongful use of marijuana, and six instances of failing to go to your appointed place of duty (restricted muster}. Consequently, when applying for a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06291-10

    Original file (06291-10.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 March 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 | CY2011 | 00347-11

    Original file (00347-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 October 2011. On 24 August 1981 you were again convicted by SPCM of a 258 day period of UA and sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 60 days, a $600 forfeiture of pay, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD). 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 | 04227-10

    Original file (04227-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 BAN _ Docket No: 04227-10 13 January 2011 This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, 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 13 January 2011. ‘Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03546-10

    Original file (03546-10.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 13 November 1979, you were convicted at a special court-martial (SPCM) of being UA for 544 days. 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 | 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.