Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 04004-12
Original file (04004-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2480

 

REC
Docket No: 04004-12
27 February 2013

 

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 21 February 2013. 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

Ln jueties .

You enlisted in the Navy on 25 May 1984. On 22 August 1985, you
received nonjudicial punishment (NOP) for being in an
unauthorized absence (UA) status on two occasions totaling 49
days, dereliction in the line of duty, and breaking restriction.
On 15 May 1986, were convicted by a special court-martial (SPCM)
of being UA for 212 days, and breaking restriction. You were
sentenced to forfeiture of $1,278, confinement at hard labor for
three months and a bad conduct discharge (BCD). The discharge
authority directed the execution of your BCD. On 28 January
1988, after appellate review, you were 80 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 an NUP and a conviction by a SPCM 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,

W. “Rao x
Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 01648-12

    Original file (01648-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 February 2013. 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. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 February 2013.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 03256-12

    Original file (03256-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 February 2013. 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 | CY2013 | NR437 13

    Original file (NR437 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 22 October 2013, 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,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05796-10

    Original file (05796-10.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 March 2011. On 14 June 1979, you received NUP for being disrespectful toward you a chief petty officer on two occasions, and failure to obey a written regulation. On 17 February 1983, after appellate review, you received the BCD.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR466 13

    Original file (NR466 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your late husband's 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02100-09

    Original file (02100-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 December 2009. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all materiai 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 | CY2007 | 03750-07

    Original file (03750-07.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. You were sentenced to confinement for 16 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 | CY2010 | 08241-10

    Original file (08241-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 April 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. On 25 November 1950, you were again convicted by SPCM of UA from your unit for a period of three days and sentenced to 30 days confinement, a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 04128-12

    Original file (04128-12.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. In February 1980 you were advised that administrative separation action had been initiated by reason of misconduct, but held in abeyance pending a medical evaluation for alcohol abuse. You were sentenced to confinement at hard labor for two months, a $598 forfeiture of pay, and a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2085 14

    Original file (NR2085 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 24 February 2015. However, two months later, on 26 August 1969, you were convicted by SPCM of a 60 day period of UA. 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.