Y
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAW ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC
20370-5100
ELP
Docket No. 6948-99
18 February 2000
Dear
application for correction of your
provisions of Title 10, United
This is in reference to your
naval record pursuant to the
States Code, Section 1552.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 16 February 2000.
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.
(S2c) and served for 16 months
Your offenses consisted of lounging in a bunk
The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy on 16 April 1947
for four years at age 19.
The record reflects that you were
advanced to seaman second class
without incident.
However, during the 33 month period from
August 1948 to May 1951 you received seven nonjudicial
punishn(ents (NJP).
during working hours, shirking duty, failure to obey orders,
communicating a threat,
relieved, sleeping late,
over leave totalling about five days, disobedience, refusing to
go to mess cooking, and refusing to relieve the watch.
During
this period your rate was changed to SA (E-2) and you completed
the required training course for advancement.
no evidence in the record that you were ever advanced to SN
(E-3).
leaving your post without being properly
missing quarters, two periods of absence
However, there is
In May 1951, you were notified that you were being recommended
for discharge by reason of unfitness and declined to make a
statement in your own behalf.
On 8 May 1951, the commanding
officer recommended that you be discharged by reason of unfitness
due to the foregoing offenses.
On 7 June 1951, the
enlistment had been involuntarily extended.
Chief of Naval Personnel directed an undesirable discharge by
You were so discharged on 28 June 1951.
reason of unfitness.
He also noted that your
The record reflects that on 17 February 1953 the Board of Review,
Discharges and Dismissals (BRDD) recharacterized your service to
a general discharge and changed the reason for your discharge to
unsuitability.
showed that you were entitled to the following awards: Navy
Occupation Service Medal, China Service Medal, Korean Service
Medal, and the United Nations Medal.
issued did not include the China Service Medal.
A new discharge certificate was issued which
The DD Form 214 that was
The Navy Awards Manual, then in effect,
be eligible for the Good Conduct Medal, an individual must have
three years of continuous active service with no disciplinary
actions, such as
NJPs or courts-martial, no mark in conduct less
than 3.0, and the average mark in conduct had to be at least 3.8.
provided that in order to
court-
S2c.
NJPs.
The Board believed that seven
NJPs do not
The Board noted the issues considered
You claim that you are entitled to
In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors such as your limited education,
low test scores, and the fact that it has been nearly 49 years
since you were discharged.
by the BRDD and your contention that you were discriminated
against by your commanding officer and that he was at your
martial prior to separation.
the Good Conduct Medal and that you were a seaman first class
(Sic) and not a
The Board concluded that the foregoing
factors were insufficient to warrant further recharacterization
of your discharge beyond that granted by the BRDD, given your
record of seven
constitute fully honorable service and certainly disqualify you
for the Good Conduct Medal.
evidence that you received a court-martial prior to separation.
Sic are
Your contentions of discrimination and that you were a
neither supported by the evidence of record nor by any evidence
submitted in support of your application.
The Board concludes
that the general discharge as upgraded by the BRDD was
appropriate and no further change is warranted.
your application has been denied. The names and votes of the
members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
Available records contain no
Accordingly,
A correction to the DD Form 214 to show all medals to which you
are entitled does not require action by the Board.
Such a
request may be addressed to the custodian of your record, the
National Personnel Records Center,
6700 Page Boulevard, St. Louis, MO 63132.
Military Personnel Records,
Your medical records were not provided for the Board's review.
You may request a copy of your medical and dental records from
the Department of Veterans Affairs, Service Medical Records
Center, P.O. Box 150950, St Louis MO 63115-8950.
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.
I,
Sincerely,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
3
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 04698-06
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 Navy on 15 February 1945 at age 19. received a seventh NJP for a brief period of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04771-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 April 2010. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as the passage of time, your desire to be reinstated to paygrade S2c, and the supporting documentation provided with your application. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03224-01
material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, considered your application on Documentary regulations and policies. (UA) totaling about 9 days, two brief In December 1953, you were notified that you were being recommended for discharge by reason of unfitness. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 00482-03
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 7 January 1955 the Naval Discharge Review Board denied your request for recharacterization of your service noting, in part, that there was sufficient evidence of your involvement to warrant trial by court-martial, and that you elected the undesirable discharge after being confronted with...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05040-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 November 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. On 19 November 1956 you received NJP for The punishment The punishment imposed was 10 On 13 February 1957 you were convicted by summary court-martial of failure to obey a lawful order and damaging government property. ...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00439-09
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. authority directed separation under honorable conditions by reason of unsuitability and on 8 November 1951, while serving as a seaman recruit, you were issued a general discharge. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2009-010
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the applicant's military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submissions, and applicable law: The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 of title 10 of the United States Code. Up until April 6, 1944, a member appar- ently qualified for an Honorable discharge if, like the applicant, he was discharged for the con- venience of the Government; he had “[n]ever...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05121-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 November 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted Your allegations of error and your naval record and applicable statutes, After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2009-083
On June 1, 1976, the applicant was transferred from the BURTON ISLAND to Coast 1. I would further ask that should you feel that I should indeed be discharged from the Coast Guard, that my discharge be an Honor- able one rather than a General discharge. On November 17, 1976, the base Executive Officer noted that the applicant had refused to sign his discharge papers and so he told the applicant that if he did not agree with his dis- charge, he “had the right to appeal to the Board of...
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501240
On December 8, 2002, the Department of the Navy Board for Correction of Naval Records denied relief to PNSN B_(Applicant) request dated March 25, 2002. In addition on June 6, 2004 PNSN B_(Applicant) submits to the Naval Council of Personnel Records, Naval Discharge Review Board an application for discharge review. In response to Violation of UCMJ Article 87 (Missing Ships Movement), PNSN B_(Applicant) had in receipt Temporary Additional Duty orders (TAB H) to report to Commanding Officer,...