D E P A R T M E N T OF T H E 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
TRG
Docket No: 6935-01
10 May 2002
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 7 May 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 that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice.
You enlisted in the Navy on 12 January 1965 at age 17 on a
minority enlistment. This was an enlistment which would expire
the day before your 21st birthday, on 1 May 1968. The record
shows that during the period 28 July 1965 to 3 October 1967 you
received nonjudicial punishment on two occasions and were
convicted by a summary court-martial. Your offenses were two
instances of disrespect, disobedience, communicating a threat and
possession of two identification cards.
A special court-martial convened on 18 January 1968 and convicted
you of an unauthorized absence of about three hours, wearing an
improper uniform and wrongful appropriation of a Navy vehicle.
The court sentenced to a reduction to pay grade E-1, a forfeiture
of $909.80, and confinement at hard labor for three months.
You were placed in confinement on 23 January 1968 and remained in
confinement until you were restored to duty on 2 April 1968. In
accordance with regulations in effect at the time, you were
advanced to pay grade E-2 on the latter date.
At that time, your enlistment was extended to 16 July 1968 to
make up for the time lost while you were in confinement. You
were released from active duty on 18 April 1968 with your service
characterized as honorable. At that time, you had completed 3
years and 23 days of active service. The reason for your
separation was "release from active duty within three months of
expiration of USN contract and concurrent transfer to Naval
Reserve". Subsequently, you were issued an honorable discharge
at the end of your military obligation.
You contend in your application that the date of release from
active duty should be 1 May 1968, at the expiration of your
enlistment, and the 18 April 1968 date is in error.
Regulations in effect at the time of your release from active
duty allowed for early release from active duty in certain
circumstances. The regulations as they apply to your case allow
early separation for the convenience of the government in those
cases where an individual is at a separation activity and does
not desire to reenlist, or at a receiving command awaiting
reassignment. Since you were released from confinement with
less than three months remaining on your enlistment it would not
have been cost effective to keep you in the Navy solely to
complete your enlistment. The Board concluded that you were
properly released from active duty on 18 April 1968 and a change
in the date of your release was not 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
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06684-01
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 | CY2002 | 04258-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 January 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 probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06601-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 March 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04989-02
You contend in your application that you were not released from active duty on 6 April 1964 but continued to serve until May 1964. request and have not stated why you want such a correction. 214, and entries on three other service record pages also show that you were released from active duty on that date. 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 | 02682-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 April 2002. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01421-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 April 2002. However, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your request for discharge to avoid trial for serious offenses, and the prior unauthorized absences of more than a month. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06648-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 March 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 | CY2001 | 06213-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 April 2001. The Board noted that it has no authority to take any action which would affect the finality of your conviction by special court-martial, and that its authority in this case is limited to correcting your record as a matter of clemency. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 09219-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 April 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 4 June 1957, you received a third NJP for disorderly conduct, and were awarded reduction to paygrade E-1.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07265-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 May 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. The bad conduct discharge was issued on 4 April 1966.