DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
TRG
Docket No:
7 November 2001
3467-01
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10 of the 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 6 November 2001.
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
thereof, your 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 that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice.
You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 6 April 1943 at age 17. On
25 October 1943 you were convicted by a summary court-martial of
negligence of duty.
The specification reads as follows:
.
. (That you) on or about October 12, 1943, been
.
detailed to remove a set of twin
guns from an SBD-4 airplane . . ..and to take said
machine guns to the armory,
machine guns could be loaded,
examine the said machine guns, as it was his duty to
do; the United States then being in a state of war.
.30 caliber machine
well knowing that said
did fail and neglect to
The service record shows that you pled guilty and were sentenced
to 10 days of solitary confinement on bread and water, with full
ration every third day, and forfeiture of $25 pay per month for
two months.
were honorably discharged on 20 March 1946.
You then served in an excellent manner until you
You contend in your application that you were unjustly convicted,
and request the return of your forfeitures and a formal apology.
YOU claim that you did not remove the machine guns from the
aircraft and it was someone else's responsibility to ensure the
You contend, in effect, that you
machine guns were not loaded.
were only court-martialed because someone had to be punished
after another Marine was injured when the machine guns were
accidentally fired.
The Board noted that given the passage of over 57 years since the
events at issue, no other documentation concerning this matter is
Since you plead guilty, the Board concluded that you
available.
were properly convicted.
punishment you received was much less than the maximum
authorized, and mitigating factors must have been considered.
Accordingly, your application has been denied.
votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
The Board also noted that the
The names and
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
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07496-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 September 2003. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. concluded that appropriate action was taken to remove the mark of desertion from your record. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03872-01
On 5 October 1999, AO2(AW/SW) (Petitioner) (then a frocked Chief Petty Officer) called the house of a shipmate, EM3 (B). a verbal argument over the phone, which ended when ENFN (A) gave (Petitioner) the address to EM3 (B's) house. commanding officer at the NJP and that of the ADB.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02998-01
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. considered your application 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07787-01
On 25 February 2000, Petitioner, a sergeant, pay grade The Petitioner responded by saying "that the conversation was originally lieutenarnr colonel and if the captain was During the the Petitioner was told by one of the captains, in of E-S, was discussing an issue with a lieutenant colonel. The following Monday, Petitioner was directed by the Petitioner was advised of his Article 31 rights; executive officer to provide a statement, and he did. words, Pet for Captai request of a Petitioner...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01138-01
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD S 2 NAVY ANNE X WASHINGTON DC 20370-510 0 BJG Docket No: 18 January 2002 11X3-01 C RET Dear Master Serg This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552. memorandum for the record dated 15 January 2002, Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) will remove from your OMPF the references to your convictions. However, since he has...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00075
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibits C and D. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial, indicating the applicant did not provide documentation to validate that he attended Ammunition School, although his WD AGO Form 53-54 did say he attended Ordnance School in Lansing Michigan...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 04848-98
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by Headquarters, Marine Corps, copies of which are attached. d. It is also important to note that Petitioner's battalion commander, not his company commander or company gunnery sergeant, referred his charge to a special court-martial and approved the sentence. We conclude that Petitioner's special court-martial did not result in an error or injustice and should not be removed from his record.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080006151
Item 34 (Wounds Received in Action), of the WD AGO Form 53-55, shows the entry, "None" to indicate the FSM was not wounded while he served in the EAME Theater. There is no evidence of record, and the applicant has provided insufficient evidence, which shows that the FSM was awarded the Purple Heart or that he was wounded as a result of hostile action. ________x______________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 08332-98
They also considered the evidence considered at your nonjudicial punishment (NJP) proceedings, and your counsel’s undated rebuttal letter. The punishment imposed upon Petitioner and Petitioner does not deny the In reviewing Petitioner's case, however, Accordingly, we recommend that Petitioner's request for 7 . The uncontroverted matter of fact relative to removal of the fitness report Unless and until The Board's opinion, 4. vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00841-02
Specifically, Petitioner told the investigating officer, “I am uncertain to which people were in my car, but I think it was LCpl, Cpl and a girl named To my knowledge, no one in my car exposed themselves to anyone at anytime.” c. On 2 March 2001, charges were preferred against Petitioner alleging dereliction of duty1, false official statement, disorderly conduct, and an indecent act, in violation of Articles 92(3), 107, and 134 of the. Subj: BOARD FOR CORRECTION O~ NAVAL RECORDS (BCNR)...