Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR6399 13
Original file (NR6399 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
7O1t S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

 

SIN
Docket No: 6399-13
23 July 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 22 July 2014. The names and votes of the members
of the panel will be furnished upon request. 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 Marine Corps and began a period of active
duty on 18 April 1986. The Board found that on 1 March 1988, you
were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of 210 days of

unauthorized absence (UA). You were sentenced to confinement at
hard labor, a reduction in paygrade, and a bad conduct discharge
(BCD). On 7 March 1988, you were placed on appellate leave. You

received your BCD on 12 July 1988 after appellate review was
completed.

The Board, in its review of your record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your record of service and desire to upgrade your discharge.
Nevertheless, based on the information currently contained in
your record, the Board concluded these factors were not
sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given
your SPCM conviction of a period of UA that lasted seven months.
Accordingly, your application has been denied.

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,

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8159 13

    Original file (NR8159 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 September 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR7406 13

    Original file (NR7406 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. Nevertheless, based on the information currently contained in your record, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your NJP, and conviction by SPCM of a period of UA that lasted over 14 months, ending with your...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8157 13

    Original file (NR8157 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 September 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02589-09

    Original file (02589-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, gitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 March 2010. 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 discharge authority directed the execution of your’ BCD.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR5512 13

    Original file (NR5512 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. on the information currently contained in your record, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4321 13

    Original file (NR4321 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. : 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10118-10

    Original file (10118-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 July 2011. 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 existencetof probable material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01419-09

    Original file (01419-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 December 2009. 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 material...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 05607-09

    Original file (05607-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 April 2010. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your record of two convictions by SPCM’s. 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 | 09014-10

    Original file (09014-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 May 2011. 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 error...