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 N A W ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
ELP
Docket No. 1501-99
16 July 1999
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 14 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 on 23 August 1963
for a minority enlistment. Your enlistment contract indicated
that your date of birth was 23 November 1945 and your mother
signed the consent papers. On 24 December 1963, the commanding
officer advised the Chief of Naval Personnel (NJP) that you
reported that your date of birth was 23 November 1947 and that
you had altered a baptismal certificate, but had not submitted
any documentary evidence as to your true date of birth. On
23 January 1964, the commanding officer provided a copy of your
birth certificate and advised CNP that you had been transferred
to await discharge authorization. However, you were recommended
for reenlistment upon reaching the authorized age for enlistment.
Thereafter, CNP directed that you be discharged by reason of
minority. You were honorably discharged on 25 February 1964.
The record reflects that you reenlisted in the Navy at age 17 on
10 March 1965 for a minority enlistment as an SA (E-2) . During
the 11 month period from June 1965 to May 1966, you received six
nonjudicial punishments (NJP) and were convicted by a special
court-martial. Your offenses consisted of six periods of
unauthorized absence (UA) totalling about 32 days, three
instances of disobedience, loss of an armed forces identification
card, disrespect, and failure to obey an order.
On 25 May 1966 you were notified that you were being considered
for discharge by reason of unfitness due to frequent involvement
of a discreditable nature with military authorities. You were
advised of your procedural rights and waived your right to
representation by counsel and presentation of your case to an
administrative discharge board (ADB). Thereafter, the commanding
officer recommended that you be separated with an undesirable
discharge by reason of unfitness. The Chief of Naval Personnel
approved the recommendation and you were so discharged on 16 June
1966.
In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors such as your youth and immaturity,
limited education, prior active service of nearly six months, and
the fact that it has have been 33 years since you were
discharged. The Board noted your contention to the effect that
your records should show an honorable discharge as reflected on
your first discharge papers. The Board concluded that the
foregoing factors and contention were insufficient to warrant
recharacterization of your second period of service given your
record of six NJPs and a special court-martial conviction. The
Board noted that despite the fraudulent entry during your first
period of service, you were honorably discharged and recommended
for reenlistment. As a result of this brief period of service,
you had an advantage over other 17 years olds in that you were
well aware of what military life was like, its rules and
regulations, and what was expected of you. Therefore, the Board
concluded your contention was without merit. The Board noted the
aggravating factor that you waived an ADB, the one opportunity
you had to show why you should be retained or discharged under
honorable conditions. The Board concluded that you were guilty
of too much misconduct in only 15 months of service to warrant
recharacterization to honorable or under honorable conditions.
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 k'eep 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 PFEIFE'ER
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00632-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 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. CNP further directed that you be advised that you were being placed in a probationary status for a period of 12 months and that the CO was authorized to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00347-99
You were sentenced to confinement at hard labor for four months, forfeitures of $55 per month for four months and a bad conduct discharge. 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...
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 | CY2008 | 12268-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 November 2009. 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. Therefore, you were recommended for administrative separation with an undesirable discharge (UD) due to being unfit for military service, and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08213-00
your second request on 22 August 1966. Since you You were advised of your _ An enlisted performance evaluation board was convened in the Bureau of Naval Personnel on 23 March 1967 and recommended an undesirable discharge by reason of misconduct due to civil conviction. 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 | 02150-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 August 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 | 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 | CY2002 | 07265-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 May 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. The bad conduct discharge was issued on 4 April 1966.
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 | CY2002 | 01492-02
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.You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 14 September 1963 for four years at age 17. However, the Board...