Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 05026 12
Original file (05026 12.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: 5026-12
27 March 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 26 March 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 that the evidence submitted was

insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice.

You enlisted in the Marine Corps and entered active duty on 29
August 1977. You received nonjudicial punishment on three
occasions and were convicted by two special courts-martial
(SPCM). Your offenses included absence from your appointed place
of duty on three occasions, six periods of unauthorized absence
totaling 145 days, dereliction of duty, and failure to go to your
appointed place of duty (five specifications). The sentence at
your second SPCM included a bad conduct discharge (BCD). On 9
January 1981, you received the BCD after appellate review.
In its review of your application, the Board carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth,
character reference letters, and remorse. However, the Board
concluded that your BCD should not be changed due to your
serious acts of misconduct. 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,

racy Pe

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 05391 12

    Original file (05391 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 March 2013. A review of your discharge was completed by the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB). 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 | 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 | 04019-12

    Original file (04019-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 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 | CY2012 | 05648 12

    Original file (05648 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 March 2013. 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 | CY2013 | NR7585 13

    Original file (NR7585 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 12 August 2014. 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 | CY2013 | NR6668 13

    Original file (NR6668 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 15 July 2014. 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 8 April 1989, after appellate review, you received the BCD.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR6911 13

    Original file (NR6911 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 29 July 2014. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your post service conduct, desire to upgrade your discharge, and the passage of time. 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 | NR6608 13

    Original file (NR6608 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 8 July 2014. 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 | 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 | CY2012 | 04181-12

    Original file (04181-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You served without disciplinary incident until 5 May 1971, when you received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for a seven day period of unauthorized absence (UA). On 15 June 1971 you submitted a written request for a hardship discharge which was subsequently disapproved. On 29 March 1972 this request was denied because of your disciplinary, actions during your period of confinement.