DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TJR
Docket No: 2044-00
31 August 2000
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 29 August 2000.
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of
Board.
your application, together with all material submitted in support
and applicable statutes, regulations,
thereof, your naval record,
and policies.
Your allegations of error and
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.
Your record shows that on 8 May 1968 you
The
On 9 July 1968
The Board found you enlisted in the Marine Corps on 6 November
1967 at the age of 19.
received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for absence from your
appointed place of duty and failure to obey lawful order.
punishment imposed was a $24 forfeiture of pay.
you received NJP for a 10 day period of unauthorized absence
(UA), and were awarded reduction to
paygrade E-l and restriction
On 13 October 1968 you received NJP
and extra duty for 14 days.
for assault with a dangerous weapon and communicating a threat to
kill.
Approximately six months later,
convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of disobedience and
failure to obey a lawful order.
confinement at-hard labor for 15 days and a $30 forfeiture of
pay.
of UA. The
forfeitures totalling $20.
The punishment imposed was a $27 forfeiture of pay.
on 9 March 1969, you were
On 15 December 1969 you received NJP for a two pay period
punishment imposed was restriction for seven days and
You were sentenced to
Your record further reflects that during the period from 24
February to 11 March 1970 you received NJP on three occasions for
disobedience and two periods of UA totalling five days.
On 30 March 1970 you were notified of pending administrative
separation action by reason of unfitness due to your frequent
involvement of a discreditable nature with 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 due to your frequent involvement of a discreditable
nature with military authorities.
recommended you be issued an undesirable discharge by reason of
unfitness.
commanding officer to issue you an undesirable discharge by
reason of unfitness.
On 29 June 1970 the discharge authority directed your
On 2 July 1970 you were so discharged.
Your commanding officer
On 27 May 1970
Your record reflects that on 16 September 1977, under the
Department of Defense Discharge (DOD) Special Discharge Review
Program (SDRP), the characterization of your undesirable
discharge was changed to general under honorable conditions.
However, this recharacterization does not entitle you to benefits
administered by the Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA).
May 1979, as required by Public Law 95-126, the Navy Discharge
Review Board (NDRB) determined that you did not qualify for an
upgrade of your discharge under uniform standards and denied your
request to upgrade your general discharge.
characterization of the discharge you received from the SDRP was
not changed.
not affirmed your discharge and that you *might be ineligible for
veteran's benefits.
Subsequently, you were advised that the NDRB had
However, the
On 22
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully considered all mitigating factors, such as your youth
and immaturity and your contention that you would like your
discharge upgraded so that you may receive medical
your post traumatic stress disorder and other health problems.
However, the Board found the evidence and materials submitted
were not sufficient to warrant any favorable action given your
frequent misconduct which resulted in seven
martial conviction.
of service was changed to general under honorable conditions
but concluded that no further
under the provisions of SDRP,
change is warranted.
the Board concluded your discharge, as issued under the SDRP, was
proper and no change is warranted.
has been denied.
court-
The Board noted that your characterization
Given all the circumstances of your case,
Accordingly, your application
NJPs and a
.assistance for
The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished
upon request.
2
2
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.
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
3
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 12499 11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 October 2012. 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. 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 | CY2010 | 10254-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 July 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. 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 | CY2004 | 09154-04
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 13 July 1970 at age 17 and served for a year without disciplinary...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02772-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 November 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. for 14 days and a $20 forfeiture of pay. 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 | CY2011 | 00458-11
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. Your record reflects that on 12 August 1977, under the Department of Defense Discharge (DOD) Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP), the characterization of your undesirable discharge was changed to general under honorable conditions. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 04904-06
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 Navy on 22 March 1966 at age 19. Although no disciplinary action was taken for...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08013-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 October 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. 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 | CY2001 | 02231-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 September 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 and applicable statutes, regulations, thereof, your naval record, and policies. Given all the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07490-09
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. The record does not reflect the disciplinary action taken, if any, for this 56 day period of UA. 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 | CY2011 | 06860-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive seseion, considered your , application on i November 2011. However, neither the DVA nor the Department of Defense considers a general discharge issued by the SDRP to entitle you to any benefits denied by the original discharge. 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.