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
ELP
Docket No. 632-02
16 May 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 Navy Records,
sitting in executive session, considered your application on
15 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 20 December 1961 for four years at
age 18. The record reflects that you served without incident
until August 1963 when you began two periods of unauthorized
absence (UA) from 31 August to 15 September and 27 September to
1 October 1963. On 8 October 1963 you were delivered to federal
authorities for trial on charges of interstate transportation of
stolen property (three forged checks) .
On 11 October 1963 you were informed that you were being
considered for discharge under other than honorable conditions.
After being advised of your procedural rights, you waived your
right to be represented by counsel and to present your case to an
administrative discharge board (ADB) .
On 6 November 1963 you were convicted by civil authorities of one
count of forgery and received an indeterminate suspended sentence
and placed on three years of probation.
On 4 December 1963 you were convicted by special court-martial of
a 16-day period of UA from 31 August to 15 September 1963,
breaking restriction, and theft of $50. You were sentenced to
confinement at hard labor for six months, reduction in rank to AR
(E-l), and forfeitures of $40 per month for six months. On
6 December 1963 the convening authority reduced the confinement
and forfeitures to three months.
On 20 December 1963 the commanding officer (CO) recommended to
the Chief of Naval Personnel (CNP) that you be separated with an
undesirable discharge. He stated that you had shown a wanton
disregard for military rules and regulations, as well as the
rules of society. He further stated that your military offense
of UA and breaking restriction were carefully planned. In the
case of your larceny, he said you stole, not only from a
shipmate, but from a close friend. The CO concluded by saying
that the civil conviction was closely related to your military
offenses, in that the checks you wrote were used to finance your
first period of UA.
On 27 December 1963, an enlisted performance evaluation board
convened in the Bureau of Naval Personnel and recommended
separation with an undesirable discharge by reason of misconduct
due to civil conviction. However, CNP directed that the discharge
be held in abeyance pending further observation of your conduct
and fitness for retention. 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 execute the
undesirable discharge if you violated any of the terms of your
probation.
On 1 April 1964 you received the undesirable discharge and the CO
notified CNP of your discharge. He stated that you had broken
into a command office and stole $18 and change from the coffee
mess. He also stated that you had admitted to the breaking and
entering and the larceny, were fully aware of the consequences of
your 2 c t i o n ~ and the adverse effects of an undesirable discharge,
and expressed a desire to receive the discharge. A report of
your discharge and the reasons therefore were made to your
federal probation officer.
In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors such as your youth and immaturity,
limited education, regret for the actions which led to discharge,
your wife's statement, letters of reference, and the fact that it
has been more than 38 years since you were discharged. The Board
concluded that the foregoing factors were insufficient to warrant
recharacterization of your discharge given the serious nature of
your civil conviction and special court-martial conviction. The
Board noted the aggravating factor that CNP gave you an oppor-
tunity to earn a discharge under honorable condition, when it
suspended the discharge for a probationary period of 12 months.
However, you misconduct continued and the probation was
terminated. A Federal Bureau of Investigation report obtained by
the Board shows convictions subsequent to your discharge for
forgery and interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle. The
Board thus concluded that the discharge was proper 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
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02417-09
“RK three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 January 2010. You were so discharged. 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 | 03380-01
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. 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 January...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07708-01
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. Given all the circumstances of your case, the Board concluded your discharge, narrative reason for separation, and reenlistment code were proper and...
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 | CY2002 | 01155-02
In response to the draft action, on 11 March 1998 you submitted the following statement: I am aware of the consequences of this conviction in both the Naval Service and the Civil System and I accept full responsibility for my actions. On 14 December 1998 the Commander, Training Wing FIVE submitted a final Civil Action Report to Navy Personnel Command that stated, in part, as follows: This is not (LTJG M's; alcohol related incident February 1998 for a DUI offense on 22 July 1997 and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 05885-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 March 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. 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 | 08643-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 June 2002. On 6 October 1977 an ADB recommended an other than honorable discharge by reasion of misconduct due to civil conviction. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120006703
On 7 May 1963, his commander recommended he be discharged from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 (Personnel Separations Discharge Misconduct), paragraph 22a, with an undesirable discharge (UD) for a civil conviction. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120006703 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06163-07
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 the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.On 1 March 1961, you enlisted in the Marine Corps at age 17 with parental consent and served without...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08614-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 July 2009. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, the passage of time, and your desire to upgrade your discharge. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...