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
CRS
Docket No: 2234-99
24 August 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 28 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 reenlisted in the Navy on 3 November
1961 after four years of prior active service. Your record
reflects that you received four nonjudicial punishments. The
offenses included an unauthorized absence of a day, absence from
your appointed place of duty, dereliction of duty, failure to
obey a lawful order, disrespect, insubordination, and having a
mutilated and dirty uniform.
On 29 April 1964 the commanding officer recommended that you be
separated with a general discharge by reason of unfitness. After
review by the discharge authority, the recommendation for
separation was approved and you received a general discharge on
22 May 1964.
In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and
immaturity. However, the Board concluded that these factors were
not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge,
given your record of frequent involvement with military
authorities. The Board especially noted the fact that you were
the subject of four disciplinary actions within a period of less
than three years. In this regard, individuals discharged by
reason of unfitness often received undesirable discharges.
Therefore, the Board concluded that you were fortunate to receive
a general discharge and no change to the discharge 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 | CY2003 | 05256-03
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. After review by the discharge authority, the recommendation for separation was approved and on 2 November 1964 you received a general discharge. 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | CY1999 | 02068-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 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 | CY1998 | 03990-98
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 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 | 02111-99
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 | CY1999 | 03573-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 September 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 | 09807-02
Documentary material considered by the Bocird consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. After review by the discharge authority, the recommendation for separation was modified and on 11 January 1973 you received a general discharge by reason of unfitness due to substandard personal behavior. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 09446-02
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. An average of 4.0 in conduct was required at the time of your discharge for a fully honorable characterization of service. 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.