Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR771 13
Original file (NR771 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: 771-13
10 October 2013

 

 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your
late father’s 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 10 October 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 father’s 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.

Your father enlisted in the Navy and entered active duty on 8
October 1952. On 15 March 1954, he was convicted by a special
court-martial (SPCM) of a 53 day period of unauthorized absence
(UA). The sentence at his SPCM included a bad conduct discharge

(BCD). He received the BCD on 13 August 1954 after appellate
review.
“T erpegeesree

2

The Board, in its review of your father’s entire record,
carefully considered all potential mitigation, such as his youth
and family problems. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that
these factors were not sufficient to warrant upgrading his
discharge because of his lengthy period of UA during war time.
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 ivijustice.

Sincerely,

Nong

W. DEAN PF
Executive D a

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08761-08

    Original file (08761-08.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 May 2009. 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 | CY2012 | 07558-12

    Original file (07558-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 May 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. On 20 January 1954, you were notified of pending administrative discharge processing with an other than honorable (OTH) discharge due to unfitness.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09416-07

    Original file (09416-07.rtf) 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.On 27 October 1952, you enlisted in the Navy at age 17 with parental consent. On 11 February 1954,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 04568-06

    Original file (04568-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 October 2006. During the period from 10 June to 22 August 1953 you received two NJP’s for brief period of UA, missing restricted muster, disobedience, and failure to muster for hard labor. 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 | 06962-10

    Original file (06962-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 March 2011. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, injuries sncurred while on active duty, and belief that your offenses do not warrant a BCD. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06656-07

    Original file (06656-07.rtf) 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.You enlisted in the Navy on 12 October 1951 at age 18. Nevertheless, the Board found that these...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR321 13

    Original file (NR321 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 October 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 | CY2009 | 04535-09

    Original file (04535-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 April 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your late father’s 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 07019-05

    Original file (07019-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 May 2006. 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 | NR934 13

    Original file (NR934 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 October 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 probable...