DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TRG
Docket No: 892-00
18 May 2001
This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval
record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10 of the 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 8 May 2001. 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 were designated a naval aviator on 18 October 1949
and on 7 April 1950 you accepted your appointed as an ensign. Apparently,
you then completed advanced training as a fighter pilot and were assigned
to a squadron. On 5 August 1950, you submitted a letter to the Bureau of
Naval Personnel (BUPERS) requesting assignment only to duties involving
flying as a noncombatant aviator and not to duties involving combat. You
made this request because you did not feel morally justified in taking
human life under any circumstances. On 29 August 1950, the Commander Air
Force, U. S. Atlantic Fleet (COMAIRLANT) informed you that he intended to
recommend an adverse discharge in your case. Subsequently, you submitted an
unqualified resignation.
On 7 September 1950, COMAIRLANT forwarded documentation in your case to
BUPERS stating, in part, as follows:
(Petitioner) is considered to be temperamentally unsuitable and
unfit for service in the Navy. The acceptance of his resignation,
under the circumstances, would establish a highly undesirable
precedent and it
is recommended that his resignation not be accepted but that his
commission be revoked and that he be separated under conditions other
than honorable.
On 9 October 1950 you appeared before a board of officers in BUPERS which
recommended that your commission be revoked and that your service be
characterized as being under conditions other than honorable. The cause for
revocation was stated as follows:
This action is taken because you are a conscientious objector, who has
expressed prospective unwillingness to perform duty, and to comply
with lawful orders of competent authority, which might require taking
the life of another or others incident to execution. A circumstance in
aggravation is your previous voluntary continuation in a four years
academic and flight training program, looking toward a service career,
despite your admitted possession of an ever— strengthening moral
conviction so obviously incompatible with such a career. Further
circumstances in aggravation are that, despite your admittedly long-
held moral conviction against taking human life, you took a solemn
oath, on 7 April 1950, to support and defend the constitution of the
United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, which
obligation you stated that you took freely, without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion; and that you did not see fit to
announce your conviction until after the outbreak of hostilities in
Korea and after U. S. Naval Forces had been committed to participate
therein.
On 6 February 1951 the Assistant Secretary of the Navy directed revocation
of your commission and discharge under other than honorable conditions. You
were so discharged on 14 February
1951.
In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors, such as the evidence you submitted that you
have been a good citizen since your discharge from the Navy. The Board also
considered your contention that your beliefs were sincere and that you were
willing to serve in a noncombatant status. However, the Board found that
these factors and contentions were not sufficient to warrant
recharacterization of your discharge, given your completion of training as
a fighter pilot during a period in which your beliefs concerning the taking
of human life were apparently becoming stronger. In addition, you did not
report your beliefs until it appeared that your squadron would be
participating in the Korean conflict. In effect, the Board substantially
concurred with the rationale provided by the board of officers. The Board
concluded that the discharge was proper as issued and no change is
warranted.
2
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
3
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101226
On 4 Oct 2010, the Commander, Navy Personnel Command recommended to the Secretary of the Navy that the Applicant receive a General (Under Honorable Conditions)discharge due to Misconduct (Other). On 6 Oct 2010, the Secretary of the Navy (Separation Authority) directed the Applicant be administratively separated with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge. Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service,...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-01826
In support of his request, the applicant submits his personal statement, Congressional correspondence, recommendations from his former commander/Director of Combat Operations Fifth Air Force, narrative recommendations, proposed citations, a statement from his wingman on the 28 June 1952 mission, extracts from his personal copies of his military records to include flight records, mission reports, a copy of the only other DSC awarded in the wing, translated Russian mission reports for...
NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00588
ND01-00588 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010326, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. As explained in Enclosure 2, her Application for Correction before the Board of Correction of Naval Records, she was discharged based upon her perceived over familiarity with an enlisted subordinate while stationed at NAS Adak, Alaska. The summary of service clearly documents that a commission of a serious offense was...
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500288
The Board will determine which reason for discharge should have been assigned based upon the facts and circumstances before the Board, including the service regulations governing the reasons for discharge at that time, to determine whether relief is warranted. As the representative, we ask that consideration be given to equitable relief, as this is a matter that involves a determination whether a discharge should be changed under the equity standards, to include any issue upon which the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076204C070215
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force (Exhibit C). For the Korean War, the Air Force Historical Research Agency requires a Far East Air Forces (FEAF) general order, or documentation on which such an order would be based, to confirm official award of an aerial...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02208
Based on a review of the facts, we agree she should have met an FEB after her elimination from FWQ training as an FEB would be the only correct action to evaluate retention in (or removal from) training, and qualification for continued aviation service. She failed two opportunities to complete fixed wing training and should have met an FEB. ____________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060009860
Counsel contends that, in October 2001, the Defense Security Service issued the applicant a Letter of Intent to revoke his security clearance, citing allegations of foreign influence, foreign preference, and personal conduct. There is no evidence in the available records and the applicant has failed to provide sufficient independent evidence showing that at the time of the revocation of his security clearance, he either surrendered his Iranian passport or requested permission to retain the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2002-03006
He was denied additional training flights after breaks in training to which he was entitled and which other students received. However, AETCI 36-2205 requires undergraduate flying training squadrons to inform the ANG anytime Guard students require a progress check, an elimination check, a commander's review, or when there is a reasonable doubt about the student's potential to complete training. The DOF evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | bc-2005-01522
He should be awarded the DFC for his actions on 23 June 1952. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that the AmnM is awarded for voluntary risk of life not involving actual combat and the applicant’s actions on 23 June 1952 were previously recognized in the AM he was awarded for numerous operational flights from 8 May 1953 to 23 June 1952. On 14 June 1952, he was awarded...