DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
TRG
Docket No: 5699-01
12 December 2001
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 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 that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice.
You enlisted in the Navy on 30 September 1978 at age 19.
The
record shows that during 1979 you were an unauthorized absentee
on two occasions totaling about 13 days and missed the movement
of your ship.
However, there is no disciplinary action in the
record for these offenses.
On 15 September 1980 you received
nonjudicial punishment for an unauthorized absence of about three
hours and missing ship's movement.
period of unauthorized absence which lasted until you were
apprehended on 2 September 1982.
A special court-martial
convened on 4 October 1982 and convicted you of the foregoing
period of unauthorized absence totaling about 462 days.
The
court sentenced you to reduction to pay grade E-l, forfeiture of
$35 pay per month for four months, confinement at hard labor for
90 days and a bad conduct discharge.
You apparently began
appellate leave in November 1982 and remained in that status
until the bad conduct discharge was issued on 7 December 1983.
On 20 May 1981 you began a
In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, limited
education, and desire for a better discharge.
that these factors were not sufficient to warrant
recharacterization of your discharge given your disciplinary
The Board found
record, especially the special court-martial conviction for a
lengthy period of unauthorized absence.
the discharge was proper as issued and no change is warranted.
The names and
Accordingly, your application has been denied.
votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
The Board concluded that
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 | CY2008 | 05252-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 April 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 | CY2007 | 09570-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 December 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. You were released from active duty on 6 March 1970 with your service characterized as honorable.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03835-01
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. On 16 November 1982 you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of a 15 day period of UA, absence from your appointed place paygrade E-l, a $500 of duty,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR0753 14_Redacted
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 policiéss. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04007-09
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. However, on 9 September 1945, you began another period of UA that was not terminated until 6 November 1945. 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 | CY2006 | 02466-06
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 the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.You reenlisted in the Navy on 30 September 1981 after four years of prior honorable service. The...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR753 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 January 2015. 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 | CY2014 | NR6765 14_Redacted
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 July 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. Subsequently, you were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of misconduct due to a conviction by a Civil court.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 08166-00
A three—member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 May 2001. The record does not reflect the disciplinary action taken, if any, for this period of UA. However, the Board concluded these factors and contention were not sufficient to warrant a change in the characterization of your service because of your frequent misconduct, which resulted in six disciplinary actions, and since your conduct average...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04273-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 October 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. Board found that these factors and contentions were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given the frequency of your misconduct and...