TJR
Docket No: 8397-00
24 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 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 the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the
existence of probable material error or injustice.
The Board found you enlisted in the Navy on 9 January 1963 at the age of
17. Your record reflects that you served for a year without disciplinary
incident but on 16 January 1964 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP)
for disorderly conduct, underage drinking, failure to possess an
identification or liberty card, absence from your appointed place of duty,
and leaving your post without being properly relieved. The punishment
imposed was restriction for 30 days. On 26 June 1964 you received NJP for
wrongful appropriation of a shirt, using provoking words, disobedience,
and disrespect. The punishment imposed was a suspended reduction to
paygrade E-2. On 11 December 1964 you were warned for an absence from your
appointed place of duty and wrongful possession of a straight razor.
During the period from 16 March to 1 September 1965 you received NJP on
four more occasions for two periods of unauthorized absence (UA) totalling
11 days, disobedience, wrongful possession of an altered identification
card, two periods of absence from your appointed place of duty, and
sleeping on watch.
Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative separation action
by reason of unfitness due to frequent involvement of a discreditable
nature with civil or military authorities. After consulting with legal
counsel you elected to present your case to an administrative discharge
board (ADB). An ADB recommended an undesirable discharge by reason of
unfitness with a 12 month probationary period. The discharge authority
approved this recommendation and on 29 November 1965 you acknowledged your
retention in the Navy for a 12 month probationary period. At that time you
were also warned that any further misconduct would result in an other than
honorable discharge.
On 1 March 1966 you received NJP for a 73 day period of UA and were awarded
correctional custody for 30 days. Subsequently, the discharge authority
directed termination of the probationary period due to your misconduct, and
execution of the discharge. On 25 March 1966 you were so discharged.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully
weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and
immaturity and your contention that you were told that you could receive
veterans’ benefits after you were discharged. The Board further considered
your contention of prejudicial treatment from your superiors. However, the
Board concluded these factors and contentions were not sufficient to
warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of the serious nature
of your repetitive misconduct. Further, the Board noted that there is no
evidence in your record, and you submitted none, to support your
contentions. Given all the circumstances of your case, the Board concluded
your discharge was proper as issued 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.
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.
Sincerely1
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
3
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00347-99
You were sentenced to confinement at hard labor for four months, forfeitures of $55 per month for four months and a bad conduct discharge. Thereafter, the commanding officer recommended an You were so discharged on An enlisted The Chief of Naval The board concluded The Board noted your contentions that you had an NJPs and convictions by four summary courts-martial and a In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors such as your youth and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01501-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 July 1999. The Board noted that despite the fraudulent entry during your first period of service, you were honorably discharged and recommended for reenlistment. 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07934-07
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, the naval record you submitted 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 Marine Corps for four years on 31 July 1959 at age 20. You were...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01849-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 August 2000. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. However, on 20 December 1971, you were Your record further reflects that during the period from 12 January to September 1972 you received NJP on two occasions and were convicted twice by SCM. However, the record does...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 08056 12
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. After waiving your procedural right to consult with legal counsel and to present your case to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08614-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 July 2009. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, the passage of time, and your desire to upgrade your discharge. 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 | CY2007 | 07927-07
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 Marine Corps on 3 April 1961 at age 17. On 10 February 1965 an ADB recommended an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08189-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 June 2001.. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable Board. to go to your appointed special court-martial (SPCM) of failure place of duty and were sentenced to hard labor for a month and a $60 forfeiture of pay. paygrade E-l and restriction for 15 convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of disobedience and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09602-07
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. Subsequently, your case was forwarded, and on 20 July 1967 the discharge authority approved the recommendation for an undesirable discharge. 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 | CY2006 | 01113-07
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 1 December 1977 at age 18 and served without disciplinary incident until 8...