Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04642-11
Original file (04642-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

 

BUG
Docket No: 4642-11
8 February 2012

 

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 7 February 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 that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
errom of injustice.

You enlisted in the Marine Corps and entered active duty on 28

June 1974. On 2 November 1976, you were convicted at a special
court-martial of a period of unauthorized absence (UA) totaling
218 days. Your sentence included a bad conduct discharge (BCD).
On 4 January 1978, after appellate review, you received the BCD.

In its review of your application, the Board carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and
current desire for veterans’ benefits. However, the Board
concluded that your BCD should not be changed due to your period
of UA totaling more than seven months. You are advised that no
discharge is upgraded due solely to the passage of time or post
service good conduct. In view of the above, 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,

LY, Du hc
W. DEAN PF
Executive

jE]

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04776-11

    Original file (04776-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 February 2012. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 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 | 03817-11

    Original file (03817-11.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 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. The Board also noted that you were given a chance for retention, and to earn a better characterization of service when you were restored to full...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 01873 12

    Original file (01873 12.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 27 January 1966, you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of UA from your unit for a period of 29 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 | CY2011 | 04942 11

    Original file (04942 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 28 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03135-11

    Original file (03135-11.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 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 | 04809-11

    Original file (04809-11.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. On 5 February 1976, you received NIP for UA from your unit for a period of two days.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | NR11235 11

    Original file (NR11235 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 August 2012. The sentence at your SPCM included a bad conduct discharge (BCD) . Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden 1s on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 06490-11

    Original file (06490-11.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. The sentence at your second SPCM included 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 error or injustice.

  • 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 | CY2011 | 03286-11

    Original file (03286-11.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. Nevertheless, these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given the seriousness of your misconduct and your repetitive and lengthy periods of UA from the Marine Corps. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...