DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
ELP
Docket
14 May 1999
No.347-99
Dea
This is in reference to your
naval record pursuant to the
States Code, Section 1552.
application for correction of your
provisions of Title 10, United
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 12 May 1999.
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.
Your allegations of error and
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.
During the ten month period from June 1964 to
The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy on 6 January 1964
for a minority enlistment at age 17.
The record reflects that
you were advanced to SA (E-2) and served without incident for
only five months.
April 1965 you received five nonjudicial punishment (NJP) and
were convicted by four summary courts-martial.
Your offenses
consisted of eight brief periods of unauthorized absence (UA),
two instances of disrespect,
three instances of disobedience,
disorderly conduct, failure to obey a lawful order, dereliction
of duty, larceny and wrongful appropriation, and breaking
restriction.
On 8 June 1965, you were convicted by special court-martial of
three periods of UA totalling less than 24 hours, and three
instances of breaking restriction.
You were sentenced to
confinement at hard labor for four months, forfeitures of $55 per
month for four months and a bad conduct discharge.
authority suspended the bad conduct discharge for the period of
confinement and six months thereafter.
The convening
NJPs for absence from your appointed place of duty,
During the period from February to June 1966, you received two
more
wearing an improper
consuming alcohol while in a duty status,
uniform, carrying a deadly weapon, and possession of another
person's identification card.
You were advised of your procedural rights
1966, you were notified that you were being
On 8 October
considered for an undesirable discharge by reason of unfitness
due to frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with
military authorities.
and waived your right to representation by counsel and
presentation of your case to an administrative discharge board
(ADB).
undesirable discharge by reason of unfitness.
personnel evaluation board was convened in the Bureau of Naval
Personnel on 26 October 1966 and recommended separation with an
undesirable discharge by reason of unfitness.
Personnel approved the recommendation and directed an undesirable
discharge by reason of unfitness.
16 November 1966.
Thereafter, the commanding officer recommended an
You were so discharged on
An enlisted
The Chief of Naval
The board concluded
The Board noted your contentions that you had an
NJPs and convictions by four summary courts-martial and a
In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors such as your youth and immaturity,
limited education, Vietnam service, the 17 letters of reference,
and the fact that it has been more than 32 years since you were
discharged.
alcohol problem in the service and have been actively involved in
Alcoholics Anonymous for the past ten years.
that the foregoing factors and contentions were insufficient to
warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your record of
seven
special court-martial.
It appeared to the Board you received
considerable leniency when the convening authority suspended the
bad conduct discharge.
However, your misconduct continued and
you received two more
during the probation period.
right to an ADB, the last remaining opportunity you had to show
why you should be retained or discharged under honorable
conditions.
misconduct to warrant recharacterizing your discharge to
honorable or under honorable conditions.
Investigation report obtained by the Board noted that your
service conduct has been marred by convictions for burglary and
driving under the influence of alcohol.
application has been denied.
of the panel will be furnished upon request.
The Board concluded that you were guilty of too much
The names and votes of the members
The Board noted you waived your
NJPs after the discharge was suspended, one
A Federal Bureau of
post-
Accordingly, your
2
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that
You are entitled to have the
favorable action cannot be taken.
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 | CY1999 | 01130-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 June 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 | CY2007 | 11339-07
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. On 15 November 1968 you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of three periods of UA totalling 64 days and sentenced to confinement at hard labor for three months. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01501-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 July 1999. The Board noted that despite the fraudulent entry during your first period of service, you were honorably discharged and recommended for reenlistment. 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 | CY2007 | 07433-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 April 2008. 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 connection with this processing, you acknowledged that separation could result in an undesirable discharge (UD), waived the right to have your...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10254-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 July 2011. 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 | CY2009 | 01596-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 November 2009. 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 | CY2005 | 07602-05
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 on 5 July 1962 at age 17. You also received six nonjudicial...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07927-07
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 Marine Corps on 3 April 1961 at age 17. On 10 February 1965 an ADB recommended an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 09267-05
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 reenlisted in the Navy on 29 October 1964 at age 19 after completing a previous period of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00989-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 November 2009. You received confinement and a forfeiture of pay. 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.