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 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-51 00
TJR
Docket No: 1099-99
22 July 1999
Dear
This is in reference 'to your application for correction of your
late husband's naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title
10, United States Code, Section 1552.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Na-1
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 20 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 husband's 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 your husband enlisted in the Marine Corps on 2
March 1966 at the age of 18. His record reflects that on 14
March 1966 he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for a day of
unauthorized absence (UA). The punishment imposed was
correctional custody for seven days. On 19 July 1967 he received
his second NJP for absence from his appointed place of duty. The
punishment imposed was forfeitures totalling $40 and extra duty
for 14 days.
Your husband's record further reflects that on 26 February 1968
he was convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of two periods of
UA totalling 43 days and failure to obey a lawful order. He was
sentenced to forfeitures totalling $65 and extra duty and
restriction for 30 days. On 23 October 1968 he was convicted by
special court-martial (SPCM) of three periods of UA totalling 79
days, failure to obey a lawful order, and breaking restriction.
He was sentenced to reduction to paygrade E-1, confinement at
hard labor for six months, and forfeitures totalling $180.
On 8 April 1969 your husband was notified of pending
administrative separation action by reason of unfitness. On 10
April 1969 he was convicted by SCM of a five day period of UA and
sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 15 days, restriction
for 30 days, and forfeitures totalling $50. The restriction and
forfeitures were suspended for six months. On 22 April 1969,
after consulting with legal counsel, your husband submitted a
written request for immediate execution of the discharge. His
request stated, in part, as follows:
In regards to undesirable discharge that has been
recommended to me, I feel that it would be better for both
the Marine Corps and myself if I can get it.... I want out
so bad that I will keep on purposely doing wrong until I get
discharged from the Marine Corps .... If I can't get the
undesirable, I guess I can settle for the BCD (bad conduct
discharge) .
On 23 April 1969 the commanding officer recommended your husband
be issued an undesirable discharge by reason of unfitness.
Subsequently, the discharge authority approved the foregoing
recommendation and directed the commanding officer to issue an
undesirable discharge. On 25 June 1969, while in absentia, your
husband was so discharged.
The Board, in its review of your husband's entire record and
application carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors,
such as his youth and immaturity, record of promotions, Vietnam
service, and post service conduct. The Board further considered
your contention that you would like his discharge upgraded and
noted the character reference letters provided in support of his
application. However, the Board concluded these factors were not
sufficient to warrant recharacterization of his discharge given
the serious nature of his frequent and lengthy periods of UA from
the Marine Corps, which resulted in two NJPs and three court-
martial convictions, and especially his request for immediate
execution of the administrative discharge. Given the
circumstances of his case the Board concluded his discharge was
proper as issued 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 o f f i c i a l naval
record, the burden i s on the applicant t o demonstrate the
existence of probable material error or i n j u s t i c e .
Sincerely,
W . DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 07460-98
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 | CY2002 | 04258-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 January 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. .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 | CY2001 | 06606-01
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. 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 | CY1998 | 07464-98
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. On 24 October 1973 you submitted a written request for immediate execution of the BCD. veterans1 benefits after being discharged with a BCD.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10974-02
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 | CY1999 | 00695-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Na-1 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07708-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 May 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. Given all the circumstances of your case, the Board concluded your discharge, narrative reason for separation, and reenlistment code were proper and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00646-99
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 | CY1998 | 08438-98
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 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 After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01128-99
A three-raember panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 July 1999. The punishment imposed was forfeitures totalling $75 and restriction for 10 days. However, t h e Board found the evidence and materials submitted w e r e n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o warrant r e c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f your d i s c h a r g e given t h e s e r i o u s n a t u r e o f your f r e q u e n t misconduct, which r e s u l t e d...