DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
CRS
Docket No:
19 October
4919-01
2001
Dear
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 17 October 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 that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice.
You served without incident until 20 September 1971 when
The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy on 25 July 1967 at
age 19.
you received nonjudicial punishment for failure to obey a lawful
order by reading on watch and not conducting a continuous patrol.
The punishment imposed consisted of a reduction in pay grade from
STS2 (E-5) to STS3 (E-4).
second nonjudicial punishment for failure to obey a lawful order.
The punishment imposed consisted of a reduction in pay grade from
E-4 to STSSN (E-3).
On 15 February 1972 you received a
conducted on 23 March 1972, found that
On 5 May 1972
A psychiatric evaluation,
you had a passive-aggressive personality disorder.
the commanding officer recommended that you be separated with an
honorable discharge by reason of unsuitability due to the
diagnosed personality disorder.
On 9 May 1972 Commander,
Submarine Force,
You were honorably discharged on 23 May 1972 in the rank of
STSSN.
Pacific Fleet revoked your submarine designator.
In this regard, the Board presumed that the
The Board noted your contention that you should have been
separated as an STS2 but found it insufficient for restoration to
that rank.
commanding officer acted reasonably in concluding, based on the
evidence before him on both occasions,
that you committed the
foregoing offenses and reduction in rate was an appropriate
punishment.
The Board concluded that the commanding officer was
in the best position to resolve the factual issues and determine
an appropriate punishment.
Concerning your request for restoring your submarine designator,
it is clear that it was properly revoked on 9 May 1972 by
Commander, Submarine Force, Pacific Fleet and there is no-reason
for the Board to override this decision.
Accordingly, your application has been denied.
votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
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 | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600307
The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). The names, and...
NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00876
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-LISR, USN Docket No. ND03-00876 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030422. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01960-09
Your allegations of error and thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy on 30 May 2000. on 10 May 2004 you were frocked to AM2 (B-5). The Board found no merit in your request to restore your former frocked rate of AM2. 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 | CY2014 | NR2400 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 March 2015. 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 also considered your assertion that the GCM sentence was.
NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00223
ND04-00223 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031119. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review.
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600270
Specification 2: On or about 8904xx, on board USS EMORY S. LAND (AS-39), knowingly fraternize with HM1 J_ K. T_, USN, on terms of military equality by asking her to be his social companion.Specification 3: On or about 8904xx, on board USS EMORY S. LAND (AS-39), wrongfully communicate a threat to HM1 J_ K. T_, USN, to expose private information about her.Additional Charge I: violation of UCMJ, Article 92: From on or about 8901xx to 8906xx violate a general regulation, to wit: Article 1131,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00572-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 September 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 | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500812
The Applicant requests that his characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. “Propriety or Equity Issue(s): The Applicant was instructed to lie on his entrance physical by his recruiter.Statement: In accordance with 32 CFR § 724, and SECNAVINST 5420.174D, the Veterans of Foreign Wars submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) the above issue and following statement in supplement to the Applicant’s petitionThe Applicant in this case is a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 01897-06
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 that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.The Board found that on 17 February 1998 you reenlisted in the Navy after nearly ten years of prior...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09724-06
This is the same belief of my chain of command as seen in enclosure (12). Enclosures (13) and (14), are my NJP proceedings.3. Supervision of all Intelligence Department ratings while managing some of the Navy’s most sensitive programs for Commander Submarine Group Seven.Subj: APPLICATION FOR REMOVAL OF ADVERSE EVALUATION AND REINSTATEMENT OF CHIEF PETTY OFFICER (CPO) SELECTIONOfficer.