Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06601-01
Original file (06601-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE  NAVY 

B O A R D   F O R   C O R R E C T I O N   O F   N A V A L   R E C O R D S  

2  N A V Y   A N N E X  

W A S H I N G T O N   D C   2 0 3 7 0 - 5 1 0 0  

TJR 
Docket No:  6601-01 
12 March 2002 

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 5 March 2002.  Your allegations of error and 
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. 

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 29 May 1968 
at the age of 18.  Your record reflects that on 14 January 1969 
you received nonjudicial punishment  (NJP) for failure to go to 
your appointed place of duty and were awarded a $25 forfeiture of 
pay.  On 1 April  1969 you were convicted by special court-martial 
(SPCM) of two specifications of disobedience, misbehavior as a 
sentinel, and making a false official statement.  You were 
sentenced to confinement at hard labor for three months, 
reduction to paygrade E-1, and a $219 forfeiture of pay.  On 25 
August  1969 you received NJP for absence from your appointed 
place of duty and were awarded a $25 forfeiture of pay and extra 
duty for two weeks.  Shortly thereafter, on 30 September 1969, 
you were again convicted by SPCM of sleeping on post and failure 
to obey a lawful order.  You were sentenced to a $160 forfeiture 
of pay and confinement at hard labor for two months. 

On 13 December 1969 you were convicted by SPCM of a nine day 
period of unauthorized absence  (UA),  assault, resisting. arrest, 
and disrespect.  You were sentenced to confinement at hard labor 

for five months, a $410 forfeiture of pay, and a bad conduct 
discharge (BCD).  On 23 March 1970 you submitted a written 
request for a general discharge stating that you did not desire 
restoration to duty.  The BCD was approved at all levels of 
review and on 25 June 1970 you were so discharged. 

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 you have 
suffered for years with battle fatigue.  The Board also 
considered your contention that you were not given any drug 
rehabilitation treatment.  However, the Board concluded these 
factors and contentions were not sufficient to warrant 
recharacterization of your discharge because of your repetitive 
misconduct, which resulted in two NJPs and three court-martial 
convictions.  Further, the Board noted that there is no evidence 
in the record, and you submitted none, to support your 
contentions that you suffered from battle fatigue or were in need 
of drug rehabilitation.  Given all the circumstances of your 
case, the Board concluded your discharge was proper as issued and 
no change is warranted.  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 



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08556-01

    Original file (08556-01.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 20 October 1960 you submitted a written request for immediate execution of the BCD. 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 | 06684-01

    Original file (06684-01.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 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 | CY2001 | 07707-01

    Original file (07707-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 May 2002. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10343-02

    Original file (10343-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 September 2003. 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 26 October 1966 you were convicted by SPCM of a 67 day period of UA and were sentenced to confinement at hard labor for six months, a $342...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10974-02

    Original file (10974-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 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 | CY2002 | 10272-02

    Original file (10272-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 September 2003. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 09384-02

    Original file (09384-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 August 2003. You received NJP on 22 February 1992 for a 17 period of unauthorized absence (UA) and were awarded restriction and extra duty for 4 5 days and a $550 forfeiture of pay. However, the record does not reflect that any disciplinary action was taken for this period of UA.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04596-00

    Original file (04596-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2001 | 07792-01

    Original file (07792-01.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. 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 | CY1999 | 01099-99

    Original file (01099-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Na-1 Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 July 1999. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your husband's naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. On 23 April 1969 the commanding officer recommended your husband be issued an undesirable discharge by reason of unfitness.