Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR934 13
Original file (NR934 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: 934-13
17 October 2013

 

ry

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 16 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 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 entered active duty on 13
December 1974. You were convicted by a special court-martial
(SPCM) of a period of unauthorized absence (UA) totaling 541
days. Your sentence at the SPCM included a bad conduct discharge
(BCD). On 25 March 1977, you received the BCD after appellate
review was complete.
In its review of your application, the Board carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and
family problems. However, the Board concluded that your BCD
should not be changed due to your SPCM conviction of a lengthy
period of UA totaling more than 14 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,

Lo. Sum |

;

W. DEAN PFEL
Executive Dikéc

Similar Decisions

  • 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 | NR872 13

    Original file (NR872 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 10 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. On 28 October 1987, you received an honorable discharge due to convenience of the government (review action), and were issued an RE-4 (not...

  • 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 | CY2013 | NR437 13

    Original file (NR437 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 22 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 naval record, and applicable statutes,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR947 13

    Original file (NR947 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 efficiad naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 05648 12

    Original file (05648 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 27 March 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 | 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 | CY2012 | 01648-12

    Original file (01648-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 February 2013. 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. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 February 2013.

  • 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 | 04128-12

    Original file (04128-12.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. In February 1980 you were advised that administrative separation action had been initiated by reason of misconduct, but held in abeyance pending a medical evaluation for alcohol abuse. You were sentenced to confinement at hard labor for two months, a $598 forfeiture of pay, and a...