Y
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 203704100
ELP
Docket
16 April 1999
No.8530-98
Dear
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 April 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.
your application, together with all material submitted in support
thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations
and policies
Your allegations of error and
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 January 1971
for four years at age 18.
"A" School, and
advanced to FA (E-2),
On 8 July 1971 you extended your
changed your rate to DCFA.
enlistment for additional period of 24 months in exchange for
immediate advancement to DC3 (E-4).
The record reflects that you were
completed Damage Control
The record further reflects that you served without incident
until 26 June 1972 when you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP)
for failure to obey a lawful order.
days of extra duty.
Punishment imposed was 10
On 2 March 1973, your command was advised by message that you
had surrendered to military authorities at Long Beach after being
in an unauthorized absence (UA) status since 0730 that morning.
It could not be determined from available records if you were in
On the same day, you were
a leave status prior to surrendering.
issued technical arrest orders to report to your command, the USS
PROTEUS
@S-19), at Guam, MI on 4 March 1973.
However, you
failed to report and were again listed as UA until you were
apprehended by civilian authorities on 10 June 1973.
On 24 July 1973, you requested discharge under other than
honorable conditions for the good of the service in lieu of trial
by court-martial for the foregoing two periods of UA
totalling
about 98 days and failure to obey a lawful order.
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
On 7 August 1973 the discharge authority approved the
discharge.
request and as a result of this action you were spared the stigma
of a court-martial conviction and the potential penalties of a
You were
punitive discharge and confinement at hard labor.
discharged under other than honorable conditions on 10 August
1973.
Prior to
the Board carefully weighed
While
In its review of your application,
all potentially mitigating factors such as your youth and
immaturity, limited education, letters of reference, and the fact
that it has been more than 25 years since you were discharged.
The Board noted your contentions that your wife was having a
difficult pregnancy, was afraid of losing the child, and you
wanted to be with her.
The Board concluded that these factors
and contentions were insufficient to warrant recharacterization
of your discharge given your record of an NJP and the fact that
you accepted discharge rather than face trial by court-martial
for a prolonged period of UA of more than three months.
the Board could understand your desire to be with wife during a
difficult period, you provide no persuasive evidence to justify
such a prolonged period of UA.
aggravating factor that your UA was terminated only by your
apprehension.
The Board believed that considerable clemency was
extended to you when your request for discharge to avoid trial by
court-martial was approved since, by this action, you escaped the
possibility of confinement at hard labor and a punitive
discharge.
benefit of your bargain with the Navy when your request was grant
and should not be permitted to change it now.
The Board further concluded that you received the
Further, the Board noted the
The Board thus
concluded that the discharge was proper and change is warranted.
The names and
Accordingly, your application has been denied.
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.
2
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 | CY2010 | 07395-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 March 2011. Documentary material considered by together with all the Board consisted of your application, 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 | CY2010 | 05832-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 March 2011. 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 | 02552-99
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 | CY2010 | 05219-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 March 2010. 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 | 07422-98
imposed was confinement for 30 days. On 9 December 1975 you submitted a written request for an undesirable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for the foregoing period of UA. case the Board concluded your discharge was proper as issued and Accordingly, your application has been no change is warranted.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04350-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 February 2012. 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 21 September 1973, you were released to civil authorities for confinement as a result of the theft conviction.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06404-00
6404-00 11 June 2001 Dear This is in reference to naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552. y'our application for correction of your A three-member panel for the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 June 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 08262-00
A three—member panel for the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 May 2001. The Board concluded that the foregoing factors and contention were insufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your record of three NJPs and special court—martial conviction, and the fact that you accepted discharge rather than face trial by court-martial for two prolonged periods of UA totalling nearly a year. Consequently, when...
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 | CY2003 | 09016-03
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.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted vas insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.You enlisted in the Navy October 1977 at the age5 December 1972 and 79 November 1973 you received...