Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR5788 13
Original file (NR5788 13.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: 5788-13
21 May 2014

 

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 20 May 2014. 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. The Board also considered the report
of the Naval Discharge Review Board dated 14 April 1982, a copy
of which is enclosed.

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 began a period of active
duty on 30 December 1965. You received nonjudicial punishment
and were convicted by a special court-martial (SPCM). Your
offenses included three periods of unauthorized absence (UA)
totaling 167 days. The sentence at your SPCM included a bad
conduct discharge (BCD) which was suspended for six months. You
then entered another 99 day period of UA and your BCD was
vacated. On 20 July 1967, after appellate review, you received
the BCD.

In its review of your application, the Board carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, family
problems, and current desire to upgrade your discharge.

However, the Board concluded that your BCD should not be changed
due to your periods of UA totaling over eight months. 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,

(te SR

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR6865 13

    Original file (NR6865 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 23 July 2014. The sentence at your 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 | NR4393-13

    Original file (NR4393-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    -A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 April 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 | NR4735 13

    Original file (NR4735 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 April 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 | CY2013 | NR6327 13

    Original file (NR6327 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 17 June 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 | CY2013 | NR9017 13

    Original file (NR9017 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 23 September 2014. 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 | CY2013 | NR9266 13

    Original file (NR9266 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 October 2014. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in your case. 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 | NR6783 13

    Original file (NR6783 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 16 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 | CY2013 | NR5168 13

    Original file (NR5168 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 April 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. The Board also considered the report of the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) dated 22 September 1972, a copy of which is attached.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3839-13

    Original file (NR3839-13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your sentence at the SPCM included a bad conduct discharge (BCD). Nevertheless, the 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 | CY2014 | NR2708 14

    Original file (NR2708 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your previous case, docket number 2460-11, was denied on 22 November 2011. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 August 2014. 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.