DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370.510
0
TJR
Docket No: 4025-01
21 November 2001
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 14 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
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.
The Board found you enlisted in the Marine Corps on 20 June 1969
Your record reflects that during the period
at the age of 17.
from 15 October to 14 November 1969 you ere in an unauthorized
absence (UA) status for 30 days.
reflect what, if any, disciplinary action was taken for this
offense.
However, the record does not
Your record also reflects that on 19 May 1970 you were convicted
by special court-martial (SPCM) of a 115 day period of UA.
were sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 2 months and a
$176 forfeiture of pay.
You
You were sentenced to a $270 forfeiture of pay,
On 26 January 1971 you were convicted by SPCM of a 145 day period
of UA.
confinement at hard labor for three months, and a bad conduct
On 17 November 1971 you received nonjudicial
discharge
(BCD).
punishment
(NJP) for a 186 day period of UA and were awarded an
Subsequently, the
oral reprimand and a $40 forfeiture of pay.
BCD was approved at all levels of review and on 19 November 1971
you received the BCD.
.L
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth and immaturity.
factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your
discharge because of your frequent and lengthy period of UA,
which resulted in an NJP and two court-martial convictions.
Given all the circumstances of your case, the Board concluded
However, the Board concluded these
; your discharge was proper as issued and no change is warranted.
i 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
2
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07775-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 June 2008. 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 material error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04031-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 January 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 5 November 1965 and 3 March 1967, you received two more NUJP’s for a four-day period of UA and another period of UA.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04158-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 December 2002. 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. Consequently,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06399-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 February 2002. 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. On 9 May 1968 you were convicted by special martial (SPCM) of an 86 day period of UA and were awarded confinement at hard labor for five months and a $450...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10974-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 October 2003. On 24 June 1968 you were convicted by SCM of a 15 day period of UA and sentenced to a $65 forfeiture of pay and confinement at hard labor for 30 days. 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 | CY2001 | 04903-01
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 . You were sentenced to confinement at hard labor On 30 January 1970 you were convicted by SPCM of a 99 day period of UA and were sentenced to confinement at hard labor for a month, restriction for a month, and an $80 forfeiture of pay. submitted a written request for an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04596-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 September 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. January 1968 you received NJP for a 14 day period of UA and were awarded a $20 forfeiture of pay. Given the circumstances of your case, the Board concluded...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10677-10
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. 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 | 06684-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 March 2001. 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. A year later, on 12 April 1968, you were convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of three periods of unauthorized absence (UA) totalling 62 days and breaking...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09486-08
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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...