DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
TLG
Docket No: 7010-14
28 July 2015
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. The application was filed in
a timely manner.
Although your application was not filed in a timely manner, the
Board found it in the interest of justice to waive the statute
of limitations and consider your application on its merits. A
three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, considered your application on
14 July 2015. 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 31 March 1982. On 17 March 1983, you were convicted by
special court-martial (SPCM) of 12 days of unauthorized absence
(UA), larceny, missing ship movement, and stealing a motor
vehicle. Your sentence was forfeitures of pay, confinement for
five months, reduction to pay grade E-1, and a bad conduct
discharge (BCD). After the BCD was approved at all levels of
review, on 3 October 1983, you were discharged. The Board, in
its review of your entire record and application, carefully
weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your desire
to upgrade your discharge, reference letters, and request to
change your discharge date on your Certificate of Release or
Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214). Nevertheless, the
Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant
relief given your misconduct. In this regard, the Board
concluded that the severity of your misconduct outweighed your
desire to upgrade your discharge. In regard to changing your
discharge date, a review of your record indicated your discharge
date to be correctly stated on your DD Form 214. 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 within one year from the date of the Board’s
decision. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by
the Board prior to making its decision in your case. 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 J. O’NEILL
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5425 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 May 2015. 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. Your commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to pattern of misconduct.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5367 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 May 2015. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7371 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 July 2015. 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 | CY2014 | NR7268 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 June 2015. 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 | CY2014 | NR6342 14
aA three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 May 2015. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4944 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 April 2015. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3849 14
a three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 April 2015. 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 | CY2014 | NR6329 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 May 2015. 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. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in your case.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6504 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 April 2015. 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 | CY2014 | NR5074 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 May 2015. 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...