Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00666-11
Original file (00666-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 REC
Docket No: 00666-11

27 October 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 26 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
iniustice.

You reenlisted in the Navy on 31 May 1985, after serving over
four years of honorable service. On 15 November 1988, you were
convicted at a special court-martial (SPCM) of wrongful use of
cocaine. You were sentenced to a forfeiture of $400, reduction
in pay grade, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD). The discharge
authority directed the execution of your BCD. On a2 March 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 prior honorable
service. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were
not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge
given your record of conviction by SPCM of a serious offense.
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 ail 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,

\ hea Pd

W. DEAN PFEEF
Executive Direttio

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00178-11

    Original file (00178-11.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 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 existence of probable material error or injustice.

  • 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 | 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 | 11326-10

    Original file (11326-10.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 July 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 | 00215-11

    Original file (00215-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 October 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 existence of probable material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 12070-10

    Original file (12070-10.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 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 | 10716-10

    Original file (10716-10.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. 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. The discharge authority directed the execution of your BCD.

  • 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 | 01174-11

    Original file (01174-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    BR three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your , application on 26 October 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 | 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...