Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR6327 13
Original file (NR6327 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: 6327-13
17 June 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 17 June 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.

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 29 June 1970. You received nonjudicial punishment on two
eccasions and were convicted by a summary court-martial and a
special court-martial (SPCM). Your offenses included wrongful
appropriation, four periods of unauthorized absence (UA) totaling
284 days, and larceny. The sentence at your SPCM included a bad
conduct discharge (BCD). On 7 May 1975, 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, remorse,
alcohol ‘abuse issues, and current desire to upgrade your
discharge. However, the Board concluded that your BCD should

not be changed due to your acts of misconduct and periods of UA
totaling more than nine 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,

(Se,

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • 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 | 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 | CY2013 | NR5788 13

    Original file (NR5788 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 20 May 2014. The sentence at your SPCM included a bad conduct discharge (BCD) which was suspended for six months. 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 | 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 | 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 | NR5583 13

    Original file (NR5583 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 28 May 2014. Documentary material considered by the Board: consisted.of your application, tegether 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 | NR6771 13

    Original file (NR6771 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 9 July 2014. 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 18 November 1981 after three years of prior honorable service. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR6335 13

    Original file (NR6335 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. On 4 December 1998, after appellate review, you received the 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.