Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 01687-11
Original file (01687-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

701 S. COURTHOUSE RD SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON VA 22204-2490

 

BAN
Docket No: 01687-11
10 January 2012

 

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 5 January
2012. 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 on 27 April 1989, and served without incident
until 16 September 1992, when you were convicted by general court-
martial (GCM) of conspiracy, false official statement, larceny, and a
general order violation. You were sentenced to a loss of all pay and
allowances, a reduction to paygrade E-1, confinement for two years and
a bad conduct discharge (BCD). On 18 April 1995, you were separated
with a BCD and an RE-4 reentry code due to your GCM conviction.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your
youth and claim that you had an excellent military record prior to
your conviction. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were
not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because
of the seriousness of your misconduct. 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,

LD eae

W. DEAN PFE
Executive Diretto

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04719-11

    Original file (04719-11.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. 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 | CY2011 | 03358-11

    Original file (03358-11.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 1 November 1973 you began another period of UA totalling that was not terminated until 10 March 1977. 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 | 04056-11

    Original file (04056-11.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 January 2012. The Board, in its. 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 | 05888-11

    Original file (05888-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 March 2012. 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 | 04360-11

    Original file (04360-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 February 2012. 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 | CY2013 | NR2844-13

    Original file (NR2844-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 April 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. On 28 January 1947, you received deck court (DC) for two periods of UA.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 06634-11

    Original file (06634-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 March 2012. You then received a captain’s mast for a four day period of UA, and the BCD was ordered to be executed. 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 | 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR2672-13

    Original file (NR2672-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 April 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. 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 | 05064-10

    Original file (05064-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 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 gpplying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...