Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04467-01
Original file (04467-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC

 

20370-5100

TJR
Docket No: 4467-01
19 December 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 11 December 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.

The Board found you enlisted in the Navy on 9 April 1957 at the
age of 17.
Your record reflects that you served for a year and
two months without disciplinary incident but on 17 June 1958 you
received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for absence from your
appointed place of duty and failure to obey a lawful order.
punishment imposed was extra duty for 10 days.

The

On 5 April 1960 you received NJP for failure to obey a lawful
order, being out of uniform,
sheet.
The punishment imposed was extra duty for two weeks.
Your record also contains an administrative remarks (page 13)
entry dated 16 May 1960 which states, in part, as follows:

and improperly filling out a trip

(Member's) constant indifference to any task assigned
and his continued disregard for military rules and
regulations make him a positive discredit to the Naval
Service.

Your record further reflects that on 14 February 1961 you
received your third NJP for gambling aboard your ship and were
awarded extra duty for two weeks.
February 1961, you were released from active duty and transferred
to the Naval Reserve under honorable conditions.
1963, at the expiration of your obligated service, you were
issued an honorable discharge certificate.

Two weeks later, on 28

On 8 April

Characterization of service was based, in part, on conduct and
performance averages which were computed from marks assigned
during periodic evaluations.
required at the time of your service for a fully honorable
characterization of service.

Your conduct average was 2.8.

An average of 3.0 in conduct was

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth and immaturity and good post service conduct.
However,
Board also considered your letters of recommendation.
the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant
a change in the characterization of your service because of your
repetitive misconduct, and since your conduct average was
insufficiently high to warrant a fully honorable discharge.
Further, the Board noted that you were erroneously issued an
honorable discharge certificate at the expiration of your
enlistment and concluded that a change in the characterization of
your release from active duty would only compound the error.
Given all the circumstances of your case, the Board concluded the
characterization of your release from active duty was proper and
no change is warranted.
Accordingly, your application has been
denied.

The

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.

2

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



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11044-06

    Original file (11044-06.rtf) 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.You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 18 Nay 1960 at age 18. You were sentenced to confinement at hard...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06342-01

    Original file (06342-01.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. On 1 November 1960 you received NJP for On 30 January 1961 you were convicted by convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of absence from your appointed place of duty and were sentenced to restriction and extra duty for 10 days and a $40 forfeiture of pay. Consequently, when applying for a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02060-00

    Original file (02060-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 3 January 1959 you received NJP for failure to go to your appointed place of duty. thereafter, on 27 February 1959, you were convicted by SCM of The punishment imposed was reduction to - absence from your appointed place of duty and were sentenced to hard labor for 35 days. concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change in your discharge given your frequent misconduct, which resulted in nine NJPs and two court-martial convictions, and since your conduct average was...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 00426-07

    Original file (00426-07.rtf) 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.On 13 May 1958 you enlisted in the Marine Corps Reserve at age 22 after a prior period of honorable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06337-07

    Original file (06337-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 April 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 | CY2009 | 02411-09

    Original file (02411-09.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 concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant upgrading your discharge given the six NJP’s, conviction by SCM and SPCM, two civil convictions, and your failure to attain the required average in conduct. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05013-08

    Original file (05013-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 March 2009. You enlisted in the Navy on 10 September 1957 at age 17 and immediately began a period of active duty. your conduct averag average of 3. separation for a fully h The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, i itigating factors, such as carefully weighed all potentially mi 10d of satisfactory service, desire to upgrade duct, and the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04674-01

    Original file (04674-01.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. An average of 3.0 in conduct was The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your prior honorable service, post service conduct, and your contention that the general discharge was unjust and too severe as...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03354-01

    Original file (03354-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 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. these factors...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07844-01

    Original file (07844-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 May 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings Board. Your conduct average was 3.8. 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.