Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00710-11
Original file (00710-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 REC
Docket No: 00710-11
3 November 2011

 

 

 

me
ao
Dain hig Seo

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 2 November 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 ali material submitted in support
thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations,
and policies.

Bfter 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 23 February 1981, at the age
of 18. On 6 October 1983, you were convicted by a special court~
martial (SPCM) of causing damage to a Jeep, property of a fellow
Marine, valued at $100, causing damage to an Audiovox power
booster, property of a fellow Marine, valued at $50, and stealing
property of two fellow Marines totaling $465. You were sentenced
to a forfeiture of $1,250, reduction in pay grade, confinement at
hard labor for three months, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD) .
The discharge authority directed the execution of your BCD. On
48 December 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 and record
of service. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors
were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your
discharge given your record of conviction by a SPpcm 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) Dow Se!

W. DEAN PRAT R
Executive Diite

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10733-10

    Original file (10733-10.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. 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 | 01422-10

    Original file (01422-10.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 October 2010. On 6 November 1980 the DD was mitigated to a bad conduct discharge (BCD) and the confinement was reduced to three years. 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 | 10603-10

    Original file (10603-10.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, reguiations, 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10774-10

    Original file (10774-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 June 2011. On 28 January 1974 you submitted a written request for an other than honorable (OTH) discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for four instances of failure to go to your appointed place of duty, insubordinate conduct toward a superior noncommissioned officer, escaping from arrest, damage of government property, and two instances of assault. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07269-10

    Original file (07269-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 BAN Docket No: 07269-10 31 March 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 30 March 2011. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05719-10

    Original file (05719-10.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 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. On 15 February 1957, you received NUP for unauthorized absence (UA) from your unit for a period of six days.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3484-13

    Original file (NR3484-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your “application on 18 March 2014. | 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, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08402-09

    Original file (08402-09.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 June 2010. On 30 August 1985, you received NUP for willful destruction of military property and being absent from 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 | CY2001 | 07702-01

    Original file (07702-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 May 2002. 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 Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and immaturity, and your...

  • 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.