DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
ELP
Docket No. 6786-01
14 December 2001
Dear'
This is in reference to your
naval record pursuant to the
States Code, Section 1552.
application for correction of your
provisions of Title 10, United
Your allegations of error and injustice were
considered your application on
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records,
sitting in executive session,
12 December 2001.
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,
thereof,
and policies.
your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations
together with all material submitted in support
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 reenlisted in the Navy on 29 April 1968 for six years as a
BT3 (E-4).
more than two years of prior active service.
At the time of your reenlistment, you had completed
The record reflects that you were authorized the Vietnam Service
Medal for service on board the USS MEREDITH (DD 890).
without incident until 12 February 1970, when you received
nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for a 24 hour period of UA.
However, on 1 June 1970 you were advanced to BT2 (E-5).
You served
On 20 April 1971 you were convicted by special court-martial of
seven periods of unauthorized absence (UA) totaling about 125
You were sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 75
days.
days, forfeitures of $150 per month for three months, and
reduction in rate to BTSN (E-3).
The record further reflects that you were UA again from 24 May to
8 July, and from 9 July to 6 September 1971.
On 8 October 1971
you requested for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial for
those two periods of UA totaling about 113 days.
Prior to
submitting this request, you conferred with a qualified military
lawyer at which time you were advised of your rights and warned
of the probable adverse consequences of accepting such a
discharge.
it to be sufficient in law and fact.
discharge authority approved the request and directed an
undesirable discharge.
1971.
A staff judge advocate reviewed the request and found
You were so discharged on 29 October
On 20 October 1971 the
letters of reference,
a special'court-martial conviction,
However, the Board concluded that these factors were
In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors such as your limited education,
prior honorable service, Vietnam service,
and the fact that it has been more than 30 years since you were
discharged.
insufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge
given your record of an NJP,
and the fact that you accepted discharge rather than face trial
by court-martial for a UA of more than three months.
noted your lost time due to UA and military confinement
300 days. The Board believed that considerable clemency was
extended when your request for discharge was approved since, by
this action, you escaped the possibility of confinement at hard
labor and a punitive discharge.
Further, the Board concluded
that you received the benefit of your bargain with the Navy when
your request for discharge was granted, and you should not be
permitted to change it now.
The Board concluded that you were
guilty of too much UA to warrant recharacterization to honorable
or under honorable conditions.
discharge was proper and no change is warranted.
your application has been denied. The names and votes of the
members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
The Board
totalled
The Board thus concluded the
Accordingly,
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such
that favorable action cannot be taken.
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.
You are entitled to have
Sincerely,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
2
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06320-01
request for discharge was granted and your commanding officer was directed to issue you an undesirable discharge. Prior to submitting this request for discharge, you On 10 March 1972 The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully considered all mitigating factors, such as your youth and immaturity, service in Vietnam, and your contention that because of your personality disorder you could not adjust to duty in the United States after your tour of Vietnam. ...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 05736-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 November 2011. 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 request for discharge was granted and on 26 November 1971, you received an other than honorable discharge for the good of the service in...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 07427-05
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 28 March 1968 at age 18. As a result, on 5 March 1971, you...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04903-01
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 . You were sentenced to confinement at hard labor On 30 January 1970 you were convicted by SPCM of a 99 day period of UA and were sentenced to confinement at hard labor for a month, restriction for a month, and an $80 forfeiture of pay. submitted a written request for an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02540-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 August 2000. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. insufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your record of an NJP, and the fact that you accepted discharge rather than face trial by court-martial for three periods of UA. The Board noted...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10974-02
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 | CY2001 | 03787-01
Thereafter, the discharge authority approved the request and directed an undesirable discharge and you were so discharged on 26 February 1970. Board concluded that the foregoing factors were insufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your record of three NJPs, convictions by a summary and a special court-martial, and the fact that you accepted discharge rather than face trial by court-martial for a 31-day period of UA. Consequently, when applying for a correction of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04275-02
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. The Board noted that you were issued a clemency 1970's and not an honorable discharge as you The Board believed that considerable clemency was extended to you when your request for discharge to avoid trial by court-martial was approved since, by this action, Further, of confinement at hard...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10677-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval - Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 August 2011. 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 | 02095-02
10, United A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 September 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. On 31 June 1971 you submitted a written and warned of the probable Your request for discharge was granted and on 22 July 1971 you received an undesirable discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. ...