DEPARTMENTOFTHE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
ELP
Docket No. 8213-00
24 July 2001
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.
Your allegations of error and injustice were
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records,
sitting in executive session, considered your application on
20 July 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, 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.
The record reflects that you
On 15 May 1964 you submitted a
The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy at age 17 on
19 September 1963 for a minority.
were advanced to SA (E-2).
request for hardship discharge due to your father's ill health
and inability to work.
You stated that other family siblings
were unable or refused to help your father.
officer (CO) recommended that your request be denied because you
had two brothers living in the immediate area.
had married in December 1963 and your wife had just given birth
to a baby in April 1964.
reason for your request.
your request for a hardship discharge on 9 June 1964.
advanced to SN (E-3) on 16 July 1964.
He believed this was the underlying
The Chief of Naval Personnel denied
The commanding
The CO noted you
You were
On 4 August 1966 you submitted a second request for a hardship
discharge because your father's health had further deteriorated
and he had no income, and your wife was looking after your father
and your two small children.
your second request on 22 August 1966.
The Chief of Naval Personnel denied
and charged
cash and a transistor clock radio.
bond, you were confined pending trial. On
were sentenced to 60 days in jail and
years.
The record reflects you departed on an unauthorized absence (UA)
You were apprehended by civil authorities
on 16 December 1966.
with burglarizing a drugstore,
on 27 December 1966
taking about $20 in
were unable to post
6 February 1967 you
probation for three
On 23 February 1967 you were notified that you were being
considered for an undesirable discharge by reason of misconduct
due to conviction by civil authorities.
procedural rights and waived your right to be represented by
legal counsel and present your case to an administrative
discharge board
undesirable discharge by reason misconduct.
Thereafter, the CO recommended an
(ADB).
- .
Since you
You were advised of your
_
An enlisted performance evaluation board was convened in the
Bureau of Naval Personnel on 23 March 1967 and recommended an
undesirable discharge by reason of misconduct due to civil
conviction.
recommendation and you were so discharged on 13 April 1967.
The Chief of Naval Personnel approved the
However, the Board concluded that the
In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors such as your youth and immaturity,
completion of all but five
limited education, hardship problems,
good post-service conduct, letters of
months of your enlistment,
reference, and the fact that it has been more than 34 years since
you were discharged.
foregoing factors were insufficient to warrant recharacterization
of your discharge given your civil conviction of an offense
involving moral turpitude.
Your conviction reflected
at the time of the civil offense.
negatively not only upon you and your family, but on the Navy,
your command and peers.
the Board concluded that under current standards you would still
be discharged under other than honorable conditions. While the
Board was sympathetic toward your hardship problems, it was not
convinced they were of such magnitude that they warranted the
The Board concluded that the
commission of a criminal act.
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.
Despite your contention to the contrary,
The Board also noted that you were UA
Accordingly,
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.
2
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
3
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110001303
On 1 June 1967, the separation authority approved the recommendation to discharge the applicant from the Army under the provisions of section VI of Army Regulation 635-206 and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. On 5 June 1967, the applicant was accordingly discharged. The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of section VI of Army Regulation 635-206, due to conviction by a civil court and he was issued an Undesirable Discharge...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00632-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 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. CNP further directed that you be advised that you were being placed in a probationary status for a period of 12 months and that the CO was authorized to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09602-07
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. Subsequently, your case was forwarded, and on 20 July 1967 the discharge authority approved the recommendation for an undesirable discharge. 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 | 04690-99
You were so discharged on 15 July The commanding officer noted In its review of your application the Board conducted a careful search of your service and medical records for any evidence showing you were wounded in action while serving in Vietnam. you were transferred from Vietnam, request to CMC to see if you were reported to have been wounded in action on 26 March 1966. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01501-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 July 1999. The Board noted that despite the fraudulent entry during your first period of service, you were honorably discharged and recommended for reenlistment. 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 | CY2008 | 06118-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 February 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. On 7 June 1966 the command recommended you for an undesirable discharge due to the civil conviction but also recommended that the discharge be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080011120
There is no evidence which indicates the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. The evidence does not support changing the applicantÂ’s undesirable discharge to a general under honorable conditions discharge. The SoldierÂ’s record of service does not warrant a general discharge.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 01092 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 October 2012. 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 15 October 1965, you were convicted by a SPCM of being UA for 113 days.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050005908C070206
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. However, the regulation provides that an honorable or general discharge certificate may be awarded if the individual has been awarded a personal decoration or if warranted by the particular circumstances in a given case. The regulation under which the applicant was discharged provides for the issuance of a discharge under honorable conditions when the individual has been awarded a personal decoration.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05397-07
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 Marine Corps on 10 October 1960 at age 17. On 4 November 1963 you were again...