Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 07476-12
Original file (07476-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

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

 

TAL
Docket No: 7476-12
10 May 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 8 May 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
injustice.

You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on

10 May 1982 at age 19. You received nonjudicial punishment
(NJP) on two occasions for failure to go to your appointed place
of duty, failure to obey a lawful general order, and
unauthorized absence (UA) from you unit for one day. On 16
October 1986, you were convicted by special court-martial of two
instances of UA from your unit for a period totaling 426 days
and missing ship’s movement. The sentence imposed was
confinement, a forfeiture of pay and a bad conduct discharge
(BCD). On 30 June 1988, you received the BCD after appellate
review was complete.
The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and
overall record of service. Nevertheless, the Board found that
these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization
of your discharge given the seriousness of your misconduct that
resulted in two NUPs, a SPCM and periods of UA totaling over one
year and two months. 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,
Ly Quer ;
R

W. DEAN PFEI
Executive Direct

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 05602 12

    Original file (05602 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. On 12 May 1980, you again received NJP for UA from your unit for a period of 15 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 | CY2012 | 03895-12

    Original file (03895-12.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. On 30 August 1988, you were convicted by special court-martial of two instances of UA from your for a period of 466 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 | CY2013 | NR619 13

    Original file (NR619 13.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 received nonjudicial punishment for an 18 day period of unauthorized absence (UA). On 14 July 1970, after appellate review, you received the BCD.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3616 13

    Original file (NR3616 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 4 December 2013. On 7 July 1971, you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of unauthorized absence (UA) from your unit for a period of two 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 | 12446-10

    Original file (12446-10.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 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.. You reenlisted in the Navy on 25 January 1985 after more than three years of prior honorable service. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...

  • 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 | 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 | 07274-12

    Original file (07274-12.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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your misconduct that resulted in two NJP’s, two SPCM convictions of very lengthy periods of UA, charges being preferred to a court-martial for periods of UA totaling...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05129-10

    Original file (05129-10.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 February 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. Cofisequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 04004-12

    Original file (04004-12.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. The discharge authority directed the execution of your 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.