Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04154-01
Original file (04154-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

TJ R
Docket No: 4154-01
23 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 20 November 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 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.

Your record reflects that on 8 June 1964

The Board found you enlisted in the Marine Corps on 7 January
1964 at the age of 17.
you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for possession of a
dirty rifle and were awarded correctional custody for seven days.
On 9 November 1965 you were convicted by a special court-martial
You were sentenced to reduction to
(SPCM) of sleeping on post.
paygrade  E-l, a $120 forfeiture of pay, and restriction for two
months.

During the period from 17 January to 14 December 1966 you
received NJP on three occasions for absence from your appointed
place of duty, two specifications of failure to go to your
appointed place of duty, and disobedience.
months later, on 2 and 9 May 1967, you received NJP for a two day
period of unauthorized absence (UA) and breaking restriction.

Approximately five

Your record further reflects that on 16 January 1968 you were
convicted by SPCM of four periods of UA totalling 155 days.

You
were sentenced to reduction to  
paygrade E-2, confinement at hard

labor for three months,

and a $60 forfeiture of pay.

On 30

September 1968 you were again convicted by SPCM of two periods of
UA totalling 59 days and were sentenced to confinement at hard
labor for six months, reduction to  
conduct discharge  
BCD.
changed to a general discharge pursuant to Presidential
Proclamation 4313.

On 24 December 1968 you were issued a
Approximately nine years later your initial discharge was

paygrade E-l, and a bad

(BCD).

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
-your youth and immaturity and your contention that your record is
in error because it reflects 361 days of lost time.
Board concluded these factors and contention were not sufficient
to warrant a correction of your naval record given your seven
periods of UA totalling 166 days and your three periods of
confinement which  
that your characterization of service was changed to general
under honorable conditions under the provisions of PP-4313, but
noted that this change does not make you eligible for veteran's
benefits.
characterization of service were proper and no change is
warranted.

The Board concluded your record of lost time and

Accordingly; your application has been denied.

However, the

totalled 195 days.

Further, the Board noted

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



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04031-07

    Original file (04031-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2010 | 03003-10

    Original file (03003-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. A year later, on 28 November 1969, you were convicted by SPCM of a 268 day period of UA. On 2 March 1970 you submitted a written request for remission of the BCD and to be issued a general discharge.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01912-07

    Original file (01912-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. During the period from 12 May to 17 November 1967 you were convicted by special court-martial...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01178-09

    Original file (01178-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 June 2009. 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 | CY2008 | 01178-09

    Original file (01178-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 June 2009. 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 | CY2002 | 05868-01

    Original file (05868-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 February 2002. 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 naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Consequently,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04823-11

    Original file (04823-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 February 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. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 04181-12

    Original file (04181-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You served without disciplinary incident until 5 May 1971, when you received nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for a seven day period of unauthorized absence (UA). On 15 June 1971 you submitted a written request for a hardship discharge which was subsequently disapproved. On 29 March 1972 this request was denied because of your disciplinary, actions during your period of confinement.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02238-02

    Original file (02238-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 September 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. You were sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 30 days, to On 3 August 1960 you received nonjudicial a $40 forfeiture of pay, and reduction on 6 May 1960, you were paygrade E-l. On 27 August and again on 8 October...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03027-09

    Original file (03027-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to.warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your record of three NUP’s and conviction by two SCM’s and one SPCM for serious misconduct. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record,...