Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02922-01
Original file (02922-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

TJR
Docket No: 2922-01
20 September 2001

Dear

This is in reference to your application for correction of your
late husband's 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 18 September 2001.
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 late husband's naval record, and applicable
statutes, regulations, 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.

The Board found your husband reenlisted in the Navy on 30 October
1947 after six months of prior honorable service.
reflects that on 31 January 1948, he was convicted by summary
court-martial (SCM) of the theft of a wallet containing $48. He
was sentenced to extra duty for three months, a $240 forfeiture
of pay, and  a bad conduct discharge (BCD).
was approved at all levels of review,
husband was so discharged.

and on 10 March 1948 your

His record

Subsequently, the BCD

The Board, in its review of your late husband's entire record and
your application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating
factors, such as his prior honorable service.
However, these
factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of his
discharge because of the serious nature of his misconduct.
the circumstances of your husband's case, the Board concluded his
discharge was proper as issued and no change is warranted.
Accordingly, your application has been denied.

Given

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
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

2



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04914-09

    Original file (04914-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 January 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your husband’s 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6310 14

    Original file (NR6310 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 July 2015. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, his 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 | CY2005 | 00588-05

    Original file (00588-05.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 October 2005. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your late husband’s 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03745-06

    Original file (03745-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your late husband’s 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.Your late husband enlisted in the Naval Reserve on 14 December 1942 at the age of 17. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Mon Sep 25 09_11_22 CDT 2000

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your late husband’s naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. received the BCD. He was sentenced to forfeitures totalling $234 and a About a month later, on 25 June 1945, he received CM On 23 October 1945 he At this The Board also considered your The Board, in its review of your late husband’s entire record and your application,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04389-09

    Original file (04389-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all Material submitted in support thereof, your late husband’s naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. About six months later, on 8 January 1969, he received NUP for a nine 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 | CY2002 | 00917-02

    Original file (00917-02.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three—member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 February 2003. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your late husband’s naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. On 24 July 1948 he enlisted in the Navy and served continuously on active duty in an enlisted status until he was honorably...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11738-10

    Original file (11738-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 August 2011. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your late husband's 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 02498-99

    Original file (02498-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your late husband's naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. At this time the BCD was ordered executed. The Board, in its review of your late husband's entire record and your application, carefully considered all mitigating factors, such as his youth and immaturity.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR466 13

    Original file (NR466 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your late husband's 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...