Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 05244-11
Original file (05244-11.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: 05244-11
21 February 2012

 

Basin LANE

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 15 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 the evidence submitted was insufficient

to establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice.

You had prior active duty service for more than three years in
the Navy in which you received an honorable discharge. You
reenlisted on 26 June 1980, and served without disciplinary
incident until 23 May 83, when you were convicted at a special
court-martial (SPCM) of an unauthorized absence (UA) in excess of
130 days. Shortly thereafter on 14 September 1984, you were
convicted at another SPCM of UA in excess of 164 days, two
specifications of failure to obey a lawful order, and two
specifications of the illegal use of a controlled substance
(marijuana). You were sentenced to receive a bad conduct
discharge (BCD). Therefore, you were separated with a BCD and an
RE-4 reenlistment code due to your conviction at a SPCM. You
received the BCD after appellate review on 17 October 1985.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth, prior honorable service, and claim that your
characterization of service was supposed to be changed within 90
days after your discharge. However, the Board concluded these
factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your
discharge because of the seriousness of your misconduct. You are
advised that no discharge is ungraded due merely to the passage
of time or post service good conduct. 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,

W. DEAN W
Executive Dikéc

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04542-11

    Original file (04542-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 February 2012. Furthermore, on 15 June 1965, you were convicted again at a SPCM of UA in excess of 32 days and of failing to obey a lawful order. 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 | 04537-11

    Original file (04537-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 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 | CY2011 | 04992-11

    Original file (04992-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 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 | CY2009 | 02686-09

    Original file (02686-09.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 | CY2010 | 04227-10

    Original file (04227-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 BAN _ Docket No: 04227-10 13 January 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 13 January 2011. ‘Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04197-10

    Original file (04197-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 January 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,jwhen applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is ‘on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09299-09

    Original file (09299-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 June 2010. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04538-11

    Original file (04538-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 February 2012. 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 were told that you were going to receive a medical discharge due to your condition of pseudophilicutitis; however, your claim is unsubstantiated. Consequently, when applying for a correction...

  • 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 | CY2011 | 03702-11

    Original file (03702-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 January 2012. On 3 December 1965, you reenlisted in the Navy after three years of honorable service. 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.