Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR826 14
Original file (NR826 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

TIR
Docket No: 826-14
12 February 2015

 

 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, 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 3 February 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.

 

  

 

You enlisted a period

May 1965 Y plinary

1966, when y ecialc

a 133 day perio nce (UA

restriction. Yo confinement

four months, reduction to paygrade E-1, a i

and a bad conduct discharge (BCD). On 29 966, :
submitted a written request for immediate execution of the BCD.
In this regard, the BCD was subsequently approved at all levels
of review, and on 15 September 1966, you were so discharged
The Board, in its review of your entire record

carefully weighed all potentially mitigating f

your desire to upgrade your discharge and post ser
Nevertheless, the Board concluded Chess factors we

sufficient to warrant relief in your case because

seriousness of your lengthy period a UA. Accord

 

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
within one year from the date of the Board's decision. 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.

Si el

 

ROBERT J. O'NEILL
Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10343-02

    Original file (10343-02.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 September 2003. 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 26 October 1966 you were convicted by SPCM of a 67 day period of UA and were sentenced to confinement at hard labor for six months, a $342...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5069 14

    Original file (NR5069 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 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 | CY2002 | 00950-02

    Original file (00950-02.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 2002. 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 and applicable statutes, regulations, thereof, your naval record, and policies. Consequently, when...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10683-07

    Original file (10683-07.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 19 January 1966, you enlisted in the Marine Corps at age 20. On 19 July 1966, you began an...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10683-07

    Original file (10683-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 30 June 1967, while on ‘probation, you began a UA that ended about 187 days later when you surrendered. On 9 February 1968, the suspended sentence was vacated and the BCD was ordered executed. On 16 February 1968, you were discharged with a BCD.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6033 14

    Original file (NR6033 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 June 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 | NR5639 14

    Original file (NR5639 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 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. 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 | NR850 14

    Original file (NR850 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 February 2015. Asa ceault of this action, on 5 August 1980, you were convicted by SPCM of 328 day period of UA, and the suspended BCD was then remitt d. Subsequently, the BCD was approved at all levels of review, and on 24 November 198C yOu were so discharged. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2085 14

    Original file (NR2085 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 February 2015. However, two months later, on 26 August 1969, you were convicted by SPCM of a 60 day period of UA. 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 | NR870 14

    Original file (NR870 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 February 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...