DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
X
2 NAVY ANNE
S
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
ELP
Docket No. 1043-01
23 July 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.
Your allegations of error and injustice were
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records,
sitting in executive session,
19 July 2001.
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.
considered your
applicatjon on
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 9 October
The record reflects that you
1961 for four years at age 19.
were advanced to CTSN (E-3) and served without incident until
21 February 1963 when a Royal Air Force (RAF) noncommissioned
officer (NCO) made a statement to a criminal investigator
alleging that on the evening of 12 February 1963, after both of
you had been drinking, you made inappropriate advances toward him
by putting your hand on his crotch and undoing his trousers while
He stated that you acted
he was driving you back to your hotel.
drunk and he got lost from the directions you-gave him to the
hotel.
told you he was lost and asked you to drive since you knew where
the hotel was.
take the wheel, he drove off and left you.
However, after he got back on a road he recognized, he
You agreed and when you got out of the car to
On 9 April 1963 you made a voluntary statement to the effect that
you had engaged in homosexual activity prior to service but had
/
not done so since your enlistment.
incident was the result of drinking.
You stated that the recent
On 17 April 1963 a medical officer advised the commanding officer
that he had seen you on numerous occasions in the past six
months, and you had improved your emotional stability until you
were told your security clearance was being revoked.
officer opined that you were not a homosexual even though you had
homosexual tendencies_
The medical
Thereafter, the commanding officer recommended separation by
reason of unsuitability with an honorable discharge due to your
otherwise excellent record.
performance evaluation board convened in the Bureau of Naval
Personnel and recommended a general discharge by reason of
The Chief of Naval Personnel approved the
unsuitability.
recommendation and you were so discharged on 20 May 1963.
On 29 April 1963 an enlisted
In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors such as your youth and immaturity,
regret for the actions which led to your discharge, and the fact
that it has been more than 37 years since you were discharged.
The Board noted your contentions to the effect that for unknown
reasons you were unjustly accused by the RAF NCO, had been
drinking heavily that evening,
admitted to homosexual and bisexual tendencies, and were told
that the general discharge would be upgraded after six months.
were discharged because you
The Board concluded that the foregoing factors and contentions
were insufficient to warrant recharacterization of your
In this regard, the Board was aware of the signi-
discharge.
ficant changes in the policy governing the characterization of
service for those discharged due to homosexual actions.
the alleged homosexual conduct of which you were accused falls
within at least one of the aggravating factors set forth in
current regulations.
NC0 did not consent
The Board concluded that you were
to your homosexual advances.
fortunate to receive a general discharge since even under current
standards, you could have received a discharge under other than
honorable conditions.
upgrading a discharge and even if you were advised to the
contrary, that does not provide a valid basis for
izing service.
proper and no change is warranted.
has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel
will be furnished upon request.
recharacter-
The Board thus concluded that the discharge was
Accordingly, your application
However,
Specifically, the RAF
There are no automatic provisions for
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that
You are entitled to have the
favorable action cannot be taken.
Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and material
evidence or other matter not previously considered by the Board.
2
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
existence of probable material error or injustice.
,demonstrate the
Sincerely,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
AF | DRB | CY2002 | FD2002-0184
™ AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) GRADE AFSN/SSAN eee. However, based upon the record and evidence provided by applicant, the Board finds the applicant’s reason and authority for discharge inequitable. Applicant's Letter to the Discharge Review Board.
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Mon Feb 05 13_50_44 CST 2001
My defense counsel did not question During the (ADB) I was upset that the (ADB) any witness and myself doing (sic) the (ADB) about (0’s) behavior. Naval Military Personnel Manual (MILPERSMAN) make this guarantee applicable to an ADB respondent by stating that such an individual is entitled to “qualified counsel,” and defining that term as “counsel qualified under Article 27(b) of the UCMJ.” Articles 3640200.7 and 3620200.lv of the United States v. Marshall, 45 Strickland, at 687. Article...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2007-076
When SN P told the applicant what SN C had said, the appli- cant denied that SN C had ever complained to him about his behavior. The applicant alleged that on January 14, 2004, he was wrongfully awarded NJP for sexual harassment even though he never sexually harassed SN C. Apart from the applicant’s own claim that he never sexually harassed SN C, the only evidence in the record that somewhat supports his denial is SN P’s stated perception that SN C enjoyed some of the inappropriate 2 Arens...
NAVY | DRB | 1997_Navy | ND97-01365
There was no indication of an appeal in the record.960506: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge other than honorable by reason of misconduct due to commission of serious offenses as evidenced by violations of the UCMJ, Article 89: Disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer on 960415; Article 90: Willful disobedience of a superior commissioned officer on 960415; Article 91, disrespect toward a third class petty officer on 950929; Article 92 (2 specs): Failure to...
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501552
The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Commanding Officer’s comments: “Airman Recruit K_(Applicant) received nonjudicial punishment on two separate occasions for assault upon other service member’s and insubordinate conduct toward a Second Class Petty Officer. The Applicant’s misconduct, warranting separation for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and the commission of a serious offense, is clearly...
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100879
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.Applicant seeks a discharge upgrade to reenlist in the U.S. Armed Forces.2. The Applicant’s Commanding Officer submitted a request for administrative separation of the Applicant to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command (PERSCOM) with a recommendation for an Honorable discharge. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a...
USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00703
MD03-00703 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030310. "It also states on page 1-17 section 1202 item g “Return to full duty those Marines who successfully complete an appropriate treatment program.” and continues to item h “Process for administrative separation those Marines who do not successfully complete or refuse appropriate treatment programs or who are unable to achieve/maintain accepted Marine Corps standards of performance and/or conduct after...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001055121C070420
Issue 54 was the fact that in the transcripts the board stated that she never denied being a homosexual. However, the Board also notes that according to the transcripts CSM M___ testified that PFC A___ was not the applicant’s subordinate. The Board concludes that there was no evidence at the time of the board hearing and she has provided no evidence now to overcome the conclusion that she did make and sign the 6 May 1982 Sworn Statement in which she admitted to homosexual activity.
AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2003-00180
The applicant contends her discharge was improper because of errors in disciplinary documentation, her supervisor illegally obtained her hotel receipts, and incorrect counseling regarding re-classification into alternate career fields. Legal counsel also found no evidence the applicant's supervisor acted illegally in obtaining a hotel receipt. (Change Discharge to Honorable) ISSUES ATTACHED TO BRIEF Atch 1.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2485 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 April 2015. 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. In your case, the Board found misconduct and aggravating factors.