DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
ELP
Docket No. 8682-98
9 July 1999
Deas nna
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 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 that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice.
The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy Reserve at age 18
on 20 January 1943 for two years, or for the duration of the war.
However, on 22 March 1943 you voluntarily enlisted in the Navy
for a period six years as a seaman second class.
The record reflects that you were advanced to seaman first class
and served without incident for more than 16 months. However,
during the seven month period from May to December 1944 you were
convicted by three summary courts-martial of three periods of
absence over leave totalling about 28 days.
The medical record reflects that on 13 July 1945 you were
admitted to a naval hospital for observation of "fainting
spells." On 7 August 1945 you were convicted by a deck court of
an offense for which you had received a traffic citation.
On 25 October 1945, you were convicted by a general court-martial
of an eight day period of absence without leave and were
sentenced to confinement for 12 months, total forfeitures,
reduction in rank to apprentice seaman, and a bad conduct
discharge. The record reflects that during the trial you
testified that you became an absentee after hearing that your
wife had been unfaithful. When you found out that she had been
unfaithful, you surrendered to military authorities at the naval
hospital where you were a patient.
On 13 December 1945, while in confinement, you were admitted to a
naval hospital after striking your forehead on the deck during a
"fainting spell." A medical summary prepared by a board of
medical survey stated that you had been under observation and
treatment from 13 July to 15 October 1945. You appeared before a
board of medical survey on 16 October 1945. You were diagnosed
with a personality disorder and recommended for discharge. The
medical board summary stated that during the hospitalization you
had numerous attacks of nocturnal epilepsy. The board found that
you were a tense, anxious, and emotionally unstable individual,
suffering from epileptiform seizures. However, no psychotic
manifestations were present and you were considered competent and
responsible for your actions. The diagnosis was changed to
epilepsy. On 6 March 1946 the board found you unfit for further
service and recommended that you be discharged. The Bureau of
Medicine and Surgery approved the board's recommendation on
21 March 1946.
On 3 April 1946, the acting Secretary of the Navy remitted the
unexecuted portion of the sentence relating to confinement and
directed that the bad conduct discharge be executed. You
received the bad conduct discharge on 16 April 1946.
In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors such as your youth and immaturity,
limited education, medical condition, good post-service conduct,
training certificates, letters documenting your unsuccessful run
for the Alaska State senate, and the fact that it has been 53
years since you were discharged. The Board also noted your
contention that the absence which led to your general court-
martial conviction resulted from a phone call telling you that
your wife had left with another man and checked into a hotel.
The Board concluded that the foregoing factors and contention
were insufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge
given your convictions by three summary courts-martial, a deck
court, and a general court-martial, all during a period of
wartime. It appeared to the Board that your contention is
consistent with your testimony at the court-martial, which
apparently did not convince the court that the period of UA was
justified. The Board noted that part of the sentence to
confinement was remitted after five months because of your
medical condition. Your conviction and discharge were effected
in accordance with applicable law and regulations, and the
discharge appropriately characterizes your service. The Board
believed you were guilty of too much misconduct during a period
of wartime and concluded the 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
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05252-01
He was 2 On 14 September 1945 the convening That board concluded that in spite of his favorable sentenced to confinement for 33 months, total forfeitures, and a bad conduct discharge. While the Board does not condone such misconduct during a period of wartime, the Board notes that his service in combat appears to have been exemplary. country and the Board believes the sentence to a bad conduct discharge, even if appropriate at the time, should now be recharacterized as a matter of clemency.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 01622-07
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 15 June 1942 at age 17 and served without disciplinary incident until 5...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01398-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 July 1999. The Board concluded that the foregoing factors and contentions were insufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your record of an NJP, conviction by a summary court-martial and the conviction by general court-martial of an AWOL of more than six months during wartime. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | NC9800999
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. Since you were only 16 years old, you requested discharge from the Naval Reserve.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02998-01
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. considered your application on 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2006-139
When discharged, he was given an undesirable discharge rather than an honorable discharge. CGPC further stated the following: The applicant was discharged from the Coast Guard on April 18, 1945 with an undesirable discharge. 34-93 where the Board upgraded a 1944 undesirable discharge to a general discharge under honorable conditions.
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 00999-98
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. Apparently, no action was taken on your request for discharge because of the unauthorized absence and because even with the new date of birth, you would have been 17 years old on 11 July 1943. The Board found that these factors and contentions were not sufficient to warrant...
CG | BCMR | Disability Cases | 2002-039
The applicant alleged that prior to his enlistment and after his discharge, he had never been told by any physician that he had a condition that existed since his childhood. Furthermore, the record indicates that after a review of the applicant’s medical records, the Medical Board of Survey determined that the applicant’s disability existed prior to his enlistment. The record shows that the Coast Guard completed the Medical Board of Survey and that the applicant agreed with the reason for...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02472-01
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. At that time, a conviction by GCM precluded the issuance of an honorable discharge. Given all the circumstances of your case, the Board However, the Board concluded these Accordingly, your application has been denied.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06909-07
On that same date, the separation authority referenced the medical survey board’s report and directed a UD by reason of unfitness. Regulations also directed that individuals recommended for a UD by reason of unfitness be informed of the contemplated action, the reasons, and given an opportunity to appear and present any facts or submit a statement.CONCLUSION:Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants relief. That...