Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 08805-98
Original file (08805-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
D E P A R T M E N T  O F  T H E  N A V Y  
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 

2 NAW ANNEX 

WASHINGTON DC  20370-5100 

Dear - This is in reference to your application for correction of your 

TJR 
Docket No:  8805-98 
15 July 1999 

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 7 July 1999.  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. 

The Board found you enlisted in the Navy on 8 November 1968 at 
the age of 18.  Your record reflects that on 12 February 1969 you 
received nonjudicial punishment  ( N J P )   for absence from your 
appointed place of duty.  The punishment imposed was correctional 
custody for three days.  On 24 September 1969 you were convicted 
by special court-martial  (SPCM) of a 40 day period of 
unauthorized absence  (UA).  You were sentenced to confinement at 
hard labor for two months, forfeitures totalling $160, and 
reduction to paygrade E-1. 

Your record further reflects that on 22 January 1970 you were 
convicted by  summary court-martial  (SCM) of a 13 day period of 
UA.  You were sentenced to forfeitures totalling $50 and 
reduction to paygrade E-1.  Shortly thereafter, on 4 March 1970, 
you were convicted by SPCM of an 18 day period of UA.  You were 
sentenced to confinement at hard labor for a month and 
forfeitures totalling $70.  On 10 March  1970 you were notified of 
pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct 
due to frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with 

civilian or military authorities.  At this time you waived your 
rights to consult with legal counsel and to present your case to 
an administrative separation board.  On 31 March 1970 your 
commanding officer recommended you be issued an other than 
honorable discharge by reason of misconduct.  Subsequently, the 
discharge authority approved the foregoing recommendation and 
directed an other than honorable discharge.  On 22 April  1970 you 
were so separated. 

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, 
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as 
your youth and immaturity and your contention that you would like 
your discharge upgraded.  The Board further considered your 
contention that your benefits were arbitrarily taken away. 
However, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to 
warrant recharacterization of your discharge given the 
seriousness of your frequent and lengthy periods of UA from the 
Navy which resulted in three court-martial convictions.  Given 
all the circumstances of your case, the Board concluded your 
discharge was proper and no change is warranted.  Accordingly, 
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, 

W.  DEAN PFEIFFER 
Executive Director 



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | NC9808805

    Original file (NC9808805.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 July 1999. 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 | CY1999 | 01099-99

    Original file (01099-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Na-1 Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 July 1999. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your husband's naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. On 23 April 1969 the commanding officer recommended your husband be issued an undesirable discharge by reason of unfitness.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 07460-98

    Original file (07460-98.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 1999. 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. Given all the circumstances of your case the.Board concluded your discharge was proper as issued and no change is warranted.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00646-99

    Original file (00646-99.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 July 1999. 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 | CY2002 | 06320-01

    Original file (06320-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    request for discharge was granted and your commanding officer was directed to issue you an undesirable discharge. Prior to submitting this request for discharge, you On 10 March 1972 The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully considered all mitigating factors, such as your youth and immaturity, service in Vietnam, and your contention that because of your personality disorder you could not adjust to duty in the United States after your tour of Vietnam. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 07477-03

    Original file (07477-03.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 inthe Navy on 28 November 19 I at age 22. The forfeitures and confinement were suspended...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 07938-98

    Original file (07938-98.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 1999. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10974-02

    Original file (10974-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 October 2003. On 24 June 1968 you were convicted by SCM of a 15 day period of UA and sentenced to a $65 forfeiture of pay and confinement at hard labor for 30 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 | CY2001 | 06601-01

    Original file (06601-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 March 2002. 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 | CY1998 | 07464-98

    Original file (07464-98.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. On 24 October 1973 you submitted a written request for immediate execution of the BCD. veterans1 benefits after being discharged with a BCD.