DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
ELP
Docket
20 March 2001
No.7065-00
‘
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
Board for Correction of Navy
A three-member panel for the
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 14 March 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.
The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy on 9 May 1973 for
four years at age 19.
The record reflects that you were advanced
to HM3 (E-4) and served without incident until 16 September 1975,
when you were reported in an unauthorized absence
a period of six days.
disciplinary action is shown in the record.
Although this absence was not excused no
(UA) status for
favorable action was
It appears that on 19 February 19976,
recommended on your request for reenlistment.
You provide no
evidence as to the final disposition on your request or why you
were submitting a request to reenlist early. On
8 March
1976 you submitted another special request for a no-cost transfer
to the Norfolk Naval Shipyard dispensary due to a hardship in
commuting from your home to the naval air station dispensary.
The chain of command recommended approval of the request, but
again the final results are unknown.
You went UA again on 19 July 1976 and remained absent until
Although the NJP does not appear
apprehended on 24 August 1976.
in the record, a court memorandum reflects that you received NJP
The punishment included restriction and a
on 9 September 1976.
suspended reduction in rate to
BN (E-3).
from 13 September 1976 to 2 March 1977
You broke restriction on 13 September 1976 and began t.o
prolonged periods of UA,
and 18 March to 10 August 1977.
On 16 September 1997, the discharge authority approved discharge
under other than honorable conditions for the good of the service
in lieu of trial by court-martial.
package containing your request for discharge and other pertinent
You were discharged
documentation is not on file in the record.
under other than honorable conditions on 6 October 1977.
The discharge processing
6
On 14 June 1979, the Naval Discharge Review Board denied your
request for recharacterization of your discharge.
the Board carefully weighed
a presumption exists that the action
The Board noted your contention to the effect that
In its review of your application,
all potentially mitigating factors such as your youth and
immaturity, more than two years of satisfactory service, and the
fact that it has been more than 23 years since you were
discharged.
your misconduct was due to the pressure of family problems and
The Board also noted that your record
poor decisions you made.
does not contain the discharge processing documentation and you
provide no probative evidence concerning any of the facts and
circumstances which prevented you from returning from two
Absent the
prolonged periods of UA sooner than you did.
discharge documentation,
taken by the Navy was appropriate and proper.
supported by the
Therefore, the Board concluded that the foregoing factors and
contentions were insufficient to warrant recharacterization of
your discharge given your record of four periods of UA, for one
of which you received NJP,
discharge rather than face trial by court-martial for
periods of UA totalling 315 days.
considerable clemency was extended to you when your request for
discharge was approved.
possibility of confinement at hard labor and a punitive
discharge.
years ago, that realization does not provide a basis for
recharacterizing service.
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 thus concluded that the discharge was proper
NDRB's review of your case in June 1979.
and that you apparently requested
The Board believed that
two'other
This appears to be
By this action, you escaped the
While you now realize you made some poor decisions 23
The Board concluded that you received
2
and no change is warranted.
been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will
be furnished upon request.
The original documents you submitted in support of your
application are returned for your safekeeping.
Accordingly, your application has
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case
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.
ar'e such that
Sincerely,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
Enclosures
NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 08472-00
A three—member panel for the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 May 2001. 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 concluded that the foregoing factors and contention were insufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your record of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03515-06
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 enlisted in the Navy on 20 May 1976 at age 19. Subsequently, on 7 and again on 13 November 1977...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 07199-98
A three-member panel of the Board.for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 March 1999. 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. The punishment imposed was restriction for 30 On 23 November 1977 you received NJP paygrade E-3 and Your record further reflects that during the period from...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03156-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 February 2010. 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 initially enlisted in the Air Force from July 1972 to April 1974, and received an honorable discharge. Consequently, when applying for a correction of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07960-06
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.The Board found you enlisted in the Navy Reserve on 6 May 1976 at age 18. During the period from 1...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8164 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 September 2014. 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 | 02884-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 November 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. duty for 14 days. However, this request was denied and on 9 May 1979, after the BCD was approved at all levels of review, you were so discharged.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 01518 12
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 waiving your procedural right to consult with legal counsel and to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB), on 28 August 1979, your commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the prolonged period...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00670-11
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, reguiations, and policies. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of your misconduct, and request for discharge. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3840-13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your | application on 12 March 2014. 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...