DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TRG
Docket No: 917-02
26 February 2003
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 19 February 2003. 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
late husband’s 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.
Your late husband initially enlisted in the Naval Reserve on 10 March 1943
and reported to active duty on 17 June 1943. He was honorably discharged on
12 April 1946. He reenlisted in the Naval Reserve on 7 October 1946 and
served in an inactive status until 23 July 1948. On 24 July 1948 he
enlisted in the Navy and served continuously on active duty in an enlisted
status until he was honorably discharged on 1 August 1956. On one occasion,
he reenlisted almost three months early in order to receive constructive
service credit for retirement.
On 2 August 1956 your husband was commissioned an ensign in the Navy. He
then served in an excellent manner for about seven years. However, on 16
March 1964 he was convicted by a special court-martial of soliciting and
taking money from a petty officer. In a related matter he was given an
adverse fitness report.
On 24 October 1964 a legally constituted selection board recommended his
discharge from the Navy because of unsatisfactory performance of duty. This
recommendation for discharge was approved by the Secretary of the Navy and
discharge was directed.
He was honorably discharged on 30 June 1965 with separation pay in the
amount of $10,660.80. At that time, he had completed 8 years, 10 months and
29 days of commissioned service and 19 years, 10 months and 1 day of total
service for retirement.
You contend in your application, that your husband had been credited with
almost three months of constructive service because of his early
reenlistment, but this period was not included in his total service. You
believe that if this service had been credited, he would have over 20 years
of total service and would have been eligible for retirement.
However, constructive service was only used in computing enlisted
retirements and did not apply to officer retirements. In addition, the law
states that a commissioned officer must complete 10 years of commissioned
service to be eligible for retirement. As indicated, he only had about nine
years of such service. Since the law allowed for your husband to be
selected out of the Navy and he was not eligible for retirement, the Board
concluded that a correction to his record to show that he retired from the
Navy 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 circu~nstances 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
2
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10065-09
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your late husband's naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. On 8 March 1956 he was honorably discharged from the Navy Reserve with 13 years, 3 months, and 21 days of service. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081052C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. In this letter, the FSM states that while repairing a bridge his unit got pinned down by small arms and his right heel was injured when a box car ran over it. Based on the foregoing, the Board determined that there is insufficient evidence on which to base award of the Purple Heart in this case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080013261
The applicant requests correction of his DARP Form 249 (Chronological Statement of Retirement Points) to show retirement points credit for service performed as a senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps program (ROTC) cadet from 26 August 1946 to 27 May 1949. The applicant's record is void of his ROTC enlistment contract; however, Item 18 (Record of Assignments) of his DA Form 66 (Officer Qualification Record) shows that the applicant completed: a. his first year of ROTC at the University of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07888-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 July 2008. on 16 March 1946, your late husband The Board, in its review of your late husband's record and your application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, and your contention that he was discharged due to medical problems. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068215C070402
He completed the Ordnance Corps Officer Candidate School (OCS) at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland, and on 3 July 1943, was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Army of the United States (AUS) Ordnance Corps and ordered to active duty at Headquarters, New York Port of Embarkation. On 14 April 1958, his file was reviewed at Headquarters, First United States Army (HQ, 1USA), for promotion to MAJ. His record shows : “Not Recommended” and “Not Fully Qualified” with the comment, “Has an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 00669-03
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Nava Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 June 2003. ~of five absences, he was convicted by the GCM and sentenced'him He was so discharged on 12 May 1946. f o a BCD. a presumption of regularity attaches to all official Consequently, when applying for a correction of an naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110023896
He was issued multiple separation documents throughout his career, including the following WD AGO Forms 53-55 (Enlisted Record and Report of Separation Honorable Discharge) and/or DD Forms 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge): * WD AGO Form 53-55 for the period 21 December 1943-28 October 1945 that shows * he arrived in New Guinea on 3 August 1944 * he was awarded the Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar, Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal, and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100012720
A Department of Defense (DD) Form 4 (Enlistment Record - United States Army) shows the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army (RA), at Manchester, NH for a period of three (3) years on 4 January 1951: a. The evidence of records shows: a. There is no evidence of record, and the applicant provides insufficient evidence, to show the Army committed fraud and failed to credit him with 6 years of military service.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09033-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 January 2009. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your late husband's 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...
On 2 January 1968, the Secretary of the Air Force approved the applicant's request for reappointment in the Air Force Reserve in the grade of captain and for assignment to the Retired Reserve. After review of the records, DAO found no error or injustice in the application of procedures in effect at the time of applicant's appointment. - Letters from applicant, dated 30 Dec 97 and Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member Mr. Michael P. Higgins, Member Panel Chair The...