Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 00453 12
Original file (00453 12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

701 S, COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1004
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

 

REC
Docket No: 00453-12
1 November 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 24 October 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 2 November 1981, at age 20. On 29
June 1984, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for
disobeying a lawful general order. On 13 December 1984, you
were convicted by a special court-martial (SPCM) of wrongful
possession, use, distribution, and solicitation to sell hashish
and perjury. You were sentenced to a forfeiture of $750,
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 17 March 1986,
after appellate review, you were so discharged.
The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your record of
service. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were
not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge
given your record of one NUP, and a SPCM conviction 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,
WRU eo. 3

ROBERT D-~ ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 00151-12

    Original file (00151-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 September 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 | 05649 11

    Original file (05649 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 29 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 | 05443 11

    Original file (05443 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 probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 05244-11

    Original file (05244-11.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. Therefore, you were separated with a BCD and an RE-4 reenlistment code due to your conviction at a SPCM. 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 | 06136 11

    Original file (06136 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 29 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 discharge authority directed the execution of your BCD.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04418-11

    Original file (04418-11.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. Nevertheless, based on the information currently contained in your record, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your six NUJP’s and conviction by SPCM of very serious offenses. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01450-09

    Original file (01450-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 December 2009. During the period from 16 May 1983 to 23 April 1984, you had three periods of UA totaling 295 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 | CY2007 | 00573-07

    Original file (00573-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 November 2007. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01226-10

    Original file (01226-10.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 November 2010. On 4 November 1985, after appellate review, you were so discharged. 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 | CY2007 | 11234-07

    Original file (11234-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 November 2008. During this period of UA the BCD was approved at all levels of review, and on 19 September 1984 you were so discharged. 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.