Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03776-11
Original file (03776-11.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: 03776-11
31 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 31 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,

record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient
to establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice.

You entered the Naval Reserves on 31 April 1986, and attended

recruit training on 20 May 1986. Upon your completion of recruit
training on 24 July 1986, you were affiliated with Naval Reserve
unit. Your record is incomplete, however, you were separated on
13 April 1987 from the Naval Reserve with an other than honorable
discharge due-to your unsatisfactory drill participation.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were
not sufficient to warrant a change to your characterization of
discharge due to your unsatisfactory drill participation.
Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and
votes of the members of the panel will he 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,

W. DEAN P
Executive O

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10976-10

    Original file (10976-10.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. On 18 April 1986 you enlisted in the Navy Reserve and began a period of active duty on 3 November 1986. 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 | CY2013 | NR3159-13

    Original file (NR3159-13.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. 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. As such, on 10 July 1984, ‘you enlisted in the Marine Corps Reserve and began a period of active duty for training.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 06815-05

    Original file (06815-05.rtf) 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 that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.The Board found that you enlisted in the Marine Corps Reserve on 7 November 1986. After review by...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01499-07

    Original file (01499-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYBOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 CRSDocket No: 1499-078 January 2008This is in reference to your application for correction of naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the UnitedStates Code section 1552.A three-memberpanel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive Records, sitting in executive session, Considered your application on 28 November 2007. Documentary material considered by the Board...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 01110 12

    Original file (01110 12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 November 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR1984 14

    Original file (NR1984 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 November 2014. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 02812-11

    Original file (02812-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 January 2012. On 7 April 1992, you received the OTH discharge for unsatisfactory participation. 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 | CY2014 | NR3158 14

    Original file (NR3158 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 November 2014. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00414-08

    Original file (00414-08.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 September 2008. On 19 February 1986 your commanding officer recommended that you be separated with a discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of unsatisfactory participation due to your failure to attend regularly scheduled drills. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 05086-09

    Original file (05086-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 July 2010. Under the terms of your enlistment contract, you were required to participate in 48 drills and perform 14 days of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) each year. ‘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.