DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
                    BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

                                2 NAVY ANNEX

                          WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

                                                    ELP
                                                    Docket No. 6703-00
                                                    21 May 2001









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 for the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting
in executive session, considered your application on 16 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.

You enlisted in the Navy on 16 April 1962 for four years at age
18.   The record reflects that you were advanced to SA (E-2) and
received the Korean Service Medal for service on board USS JUNEAU
(CLkA-119) from 5 September to 17 October 1952.

The record further reflects that you served for more than 12 months without
incident. However, during the five month period from May to October 1953
you were convicted by a summary court— martial and received a nonjudicial
punishment (NJP). Your offenses consisted of a nine day period of
unauthorized absence (UA), and drunk and disorderly conduct.

On 9 April 1954 you were convicted by special court-martial of two periods
of UA totalling about 26 days, from 14-29 December 1953 and 22 January to 1
February 1954; and failure to obey a lawful order. You were sentenced to
confinement at hard labor for four months, forfeitures of $50 per month for
four months, reduction in rate to SR (E-1), and a bad conduct discharge. On
3 May 1954, the supervisory authority approved the sentence but suspended
the bad conduct discharge for the period of confinement and six months
thereafter. The Navy Board of Review affirmed the findings and sentence on
9 June 1954.

While in confinement, you underwent a psychiatric evaluation and were
diagnosed as having a personality disorder with emotional instability and
antisocial traits. During this evaluation, you reported a history of
antisocial conduct, with pre—service charges of rape and theft resulting in
a year’s probation on each charge. You were not motivated to return to
duty. The psychiatrist noted that you were not psychotic and your
behavioral symptoms made you an unsatisfactory candidate for return to
duty, and recommended administrative separation.

On 8 June 1954, after being notified that you were being recommended for an
undesirable discharge, you stated that you had no objections to the
discharge. An admission classification summary prepared on 17 June 1954 by
the Navy Retraining Command noted that you did not desire to return to duty
because you could not adjust yourself to military service, had difficulty
getting along with authority, and felt that you were being pushed around.
On 18 June 1954 the commanding officer recommended discharge by reason of
unfitness and stated that on 7 June 1954 an administrative discharge board
(ADB) had thoroughly reviewed your case and recommended separation by
reason of unfitness. He also stated that although you were capable of
fulfilling your service commitments honorably, you had resisted all efforts
to be retrained. The CO recommended an undesirable discharge upon
completion of confinement on 19 July 1954.

On 20 July 1954 an ADB was convened in the Bureau of Naval Personnel and
recommended an undesirable discharge by reason of unfitness. Thereafter,
the Judge Advocate General remitted the unexecuted portion of the sentence
in order that you might be administratively discharged as recommended by
the Chief of Naval Personnel. On 13 August 1954, the Chief of Naval
Personnel directed an undesirable discharge by reason of unfitness. You
were so discharged on 2 September 1954.

In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors such as your youth and immaturity, limited
education, Korean service, letters of reference, and the fact that it has
been more than 46 years since you were discharged. The Board noted your
contentions to the effect that you were on your way back to the base when
you were apprehended, and that you were mentally disturbed at the time of
discharge. The Board concluded that the foregoing factors and contentions
were insufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given
your record of an NJP and convictions by a summary and a













                                      2
special court-martial. Your contention that you were on your way back to
the base when you were apprehended is neither supported by the evidence of
record nor by any evidence submitted in support of your application. There
is no evidence in the record that you were incapable of distinguishing
right from wrong or suffering from a mental condition which excused or
sufficiently mitigated your misconduct. The Board believed that you were
fortunate that you were separated without the stigma of a punitive
discharge. Additionally a report from the Federal Bureau of Investigation
obtained by the Board indicated that your post—service conduct has been
marred by several convictions. The Board concluded that the discharge was
proper and no change 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













                                      3