DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR COARECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
ELP
Docket No. 121-01
22 June 2001
Dear Saale.
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 20 June 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 enlisted in the Marine Corps on 1 March
1961 for four years at age 17. The record reflects that you were
advanced to PFC (E-2) and served without incident until 9 April
1962. On that date you were convicted by special court-martial
of two periods of unauthorized absence (UA) totalling about 59
days, from 8 January to 6 February and 20 February to 22 March
1962; and breaking restriction. You were sentenced to
confinement at hard labor for six months, forfeitures of $50 per
month for six months, reduction in rank to PVT (E-1), and a bad
conduct discharge.
On 18 April 1962 the convening authority approved only so much of
the sentence that provided confinement at hard labor for four
months, forfeitures of $40 per month for four months, reduction
rank to PVT, and suspended the bad conduct discharge for the
period of confinement and six months thereafter. The supervisory
authority further reduced the confinement and forfeitures to
three months on 25 April 1962. The unexecuted part of the
confinement was suspended for six months on 1 June 1962.
On 25 September 1962 you were convicted by a second special
court-martial of a 47 day period of UA, from 30 July to
14 September 1962. You were sentenced to confinement at hard
labor for six months, forfeitures of $55 per months for six
months, and a bad conduct discharge. The convening authority
approved only so much of the sentence that provided for
confinement at hard labor for four months and forfeitures of $55
per month for four months. The supervisory authority further
reduced the confinement and forfeitures to three months. The
unexecuted portion of the confinement was suspended for a period
ef three months on 23 October 1962.
On 21 February 1963 you were convicted by a third special court-
martial of a 45 day period of UA, from 28 December 1962 to
11 February 1963. You were sentenced to confinement. at hard
labor for six months, forfeitures of $55 per month for six
months, and a bad conduct discharge. The convening 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 the sentence on
29 February 1963 and the supervisory authority reduced the
confinement and forfeitures to four months on 25 March 1963.
You were reported UA again on 23 July 1963 when you failed to
comply with orders. You remained absent until you were
apprehended by civil authorities and were returned to military
jurisdiction on 16 September 1963. The suspended bad conduct
discharge was vacated on 19 October 1963 and ordered executed.
You received the bad conduct discharge on 28 October 1963.
In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors such as your youth and immaturity,
limited education, letter of reference, and the fact that it has
been nearly 28 years since you were discharged. The Board noted
your contentions to the effect that you were told that the bad
conduct discharge would be changed to honorable in six months,
you had a nervous break down at the time of discharge and
received no medical attention, and you never received a medal for
serving on board the USS RANKIN during the Cuban crisis. Your
contentions that you had a nervous breakdown at the time of
discharge or that you served in the USS RANKIN during the Cuban
crisis are neither supported by the evidence of record nor by any
evidence submitted in support of your application. The Awards
and Special Projects Branch in the Chief of Naval Operations
Office found no evidence that the unit to which you were attached
was authorized a medal for the Cuban crisis. There are no
automatic provisions for upgrading a discharge. Even if you were
advised otherwise, such erroneous advice does not provide a basis
for recharacterizing your service.
The Board concluded that the foregoing factors and contentions
were insufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge
given your convictions by three special courts-martial of four
periods of UA totalling 140 days. Your total lost time due to UA
and military confinement was 412 days. The Board also noted the
aggravating factor that you were given on opportunity to earn a
discharge under honorable condition not once, but three times,
when the convening authority disapproved one bad conduct
discharge and suspended two others. You failed to learn from
these experiences and your misconduct continued. Your conviction
and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and
regulations, and the discharge appropriately characterizes your
service. 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
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01492-02
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 Marine Corps on 14 September 1963 for four years at age 17. However, the Board...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02238-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 September 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. You were sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 30 days, to On 3 August 1960 you received nonjudicial a $40 forfeiture of pay, and reduction on 6 May 1960, you were paygrade E-l. On 27 August and again on 8 October...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11044-06
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 Marine Corps on 18 Nay 1960 at age 18. You were sentenced to confinement at hard...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02008-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 December 2008. 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 13 April 1962 you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of absence from your appointed place of duty and sentenced to hard labor for...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10669-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 August 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. April 1961, you were convicted by a SCM of being UA for one day.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00113-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 December 2008. 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. During the period from 15 December 1960 to 23 July 1962, you received three nonjudicial punishments (NJP’s) for two brief periods of UA...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03334-01
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. confinement at hard labor for six months, forfeitures of $55 per months for six months, reduction in rate to EMFR (E-l), and a bad The convening authority approved the sentence conduct discharge. The Board noted the aggravating factor that each of the prolonged periods of UA were terminated...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04806-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 June 2000. 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. months, reduction...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 06703-00
A three—member panel for the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 May 2001. 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. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018215
The applicant requests, in effect, that his bad conduct discharge be upgraded. Army Regulation 635-204 (Personnel Separations Dishonorable and Bad-Conduct Discharge), in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel with dishonorable and bad conduct discharges. Evidence shows that although the applicant enlisted for a 3 year period, he only served 50 days of military service.