Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 03573-99
Original file (03573-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
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:  3573-99 
2 September 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 1 September 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 27 December 1971 
at age 18.  Your record reflects that you received two 
nonjudicial punishments and were convicted by a special court- 
martial.  The offenses included unauthorized absence on three 
occasions, violation of a lawful general regulation, and absence 
from your appointed place of duty on 29 occasions. 

Your military record shows that on 19 October 1973 you submitted 
a written request for an undesirable discharge in order to avoid 
trial by court-martial for absence from your appointed place of 
duty on 14 occasions, unauthorized absences totalling six days, 
willful disobedience of a lawful order on four occasions,  - 
dereliction of duty on two occasions, and appearing in an 
unclean, torn, faded, and unkempt uniform.  Your record also 
shows that prior to submitting this request you conferred with a 
qualified military lawyer at which time you were advised of your 
rights and warned of the probable adverse consequences of 
accepting such a discharge.  The Board found that your request 
was granted and, as a result of this action, you were spared the 

stigma of a court-martial conviction and the potential penalties 
of a punitive discharge and confinement at hard labor.  You 
received an undesirable discharge on 28 November 1973. 

In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all 
potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and immaturity 
and limited education.  However, the Board found that these 
factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your 
discharge, given the frequency of your offenses.  In this regard, 
the Board noted that in a period of less than two years, you were 
the subject of three disciplinary actions and requested discharge 
in lieu of another court-martial.  The Board also believed that 
considerable clemency was extended to you when your request for 
discharge to avoid trial by court-martial was appproved since, by 
this action, you escaped the possibility of confinement at hard 
labor and a punitive discharge.  Further, the Board concluded 
that you received the benefit of your bargain when your request 
for discharge was granted and should not be permitted to change 
it now.  Based on the foregoing, the Board concluded that 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 



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 01657-98

    Original file (01657-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. The Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your record of misconduct'and especially...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Thu Jan 25 11_20_10 CST 2001

    A three—member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 September 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 record...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 07460-98

    Original file (07460-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY1998 | 04010-98

    Original file (04010-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your former husband's naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. He received an undesirable discharge on 29 December 1975. In this regard, there is no evidence that he received a general discharge.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08965-06

    Original file (08965-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.On 24 January 1972 you enlisted in the Navy at age 19. Furthermore, the Board believed that...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 07830-98

    Original file (07830-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    following day, on 28 December 1972, you began a 141 day period of On 27 June 1973 UA that was not terminated until 17 May 1973. you submitted a written request for an undesirable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for the foregoing period of Your record shows that prior to submitting this request, you UA. On discharged. Given all the circumstances of your case the Board concluded your discharge was proper as issued and no change is warranted.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 07009-97

    Original file (07009-97.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your Your allegations of error and application on 19 May 1999. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. Board concluded that you received the benefit of your bargain when your request for discharge was granted and should not be permitted to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08125-01

    Original file (08125-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 May 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. On 12 April 1973 you received NJP for two periods of absence from your appointed place of duty, disobedience, and a five day period of UA. November 1976, you submitted a written request for an undesirable discharge in order...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 07938-98

    Original file (07938-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 May 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 existence...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01120-99

    Original file (01120-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 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. However, the Board found the evidence and materials submitted were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given the serious...