DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
ELP
Docket No. 1042-01
22 March 2001
Dea
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 21 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 3 April 1978 for
four years at age 22.
At the time of your enlistment, you had
completed nearly four years of prior active service in the Air
Force.
The record reflects that you were advanced to EW3 (E-4)
on.9 January 1979.
The medical record reflects that during the months of December
1979 and January 1980 you were seen at sick call for motion
sickness.
for an evaluation of your chronic seasickness.
results of that evaluation are not on file in the medical record.
On 15 January 1980 you were referred to a ENT clinic
However, the
You served without incident until 9 April 1980 when you were
reported in an unauthorized absence
absent until you were apprehended by civil authorities on
20 January 1981.
referred to a special court-martial on 24 April 1981.
Charges for the foregoing period of UA were
(UA) status.
You remained
0n 1 June 1981 you received nonjudicial punishment
one day period of UA.
to EWSN (E-3).
Punishment imposed was a reduction in rate
(NJP) for a
On 5 June 1981 you submitted a request for discharge under other
than honorable conditions for the good of the service to escape
trial by court-martial for the foregoing 286 day period of UA.
In a separate statement, you claimed that your UA was due to
marital problems caused by being at sea and being unable to work
in your rating due to seasickness.
request, you conferred with a qualified military lawyer at which
time you were advised of your rights and warned of the probable
adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge.
On 25 June
1981 the discharge authority directed discharge under other than
honorable conditions.
You were so discharged on 8 July 1981.
Prior to submitting this
On 27 January 1983, the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB)
denied your request for an upgrade of your discharge.
The Board noted the aggravating factor that this
In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors such as your prior honorable Air
Force service, college degree, letters of reference, performance
appraisals, and the numerous certificates of achievement and
commendation attesting to your achievements as an Army employee.
The Board noted the issues you presented to the NDRB in January
1983 and your current contentions that the only reason you went
UA was constant seasickness due to an ear problem.
You assert
that you should have been discharged for medical reasons.
The
Board concluded that the foregoing factors and contentions were
insufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge
given your record of an NJP and the fact you accepted discharge
rather than face trial by court-martial for more than nine months
of UA.
prolonged period of UA was terminated only by your apprehension.
Your chronic seasickness and marital problems may be mitigating
factors, but you provide no evidence of any circumstances which
would have justified such a prolonged period of UA or prevented
you from returning to military jurisdiction prior to being
apprehended.
extended to you when your request for discharge to avoid trial by
court-martial was approved since, by this action, you escaped the
possibility of confinement at hard labor and a punitive
discharge.
benefit of your bargain with the Navy when your request for
discharge was granted and you should not be permitted to change
The Board thus concluded your discharge was proper and
it now.
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.
Further, the Board concluded that your received the
The Board believed that considerable clemency was
2
,that the circumstances of your case are such that
It is regretted
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
Executive Director
PFEIFFER
3
NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 08262-00
A three—member panel for the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 May 2001. The Board concluded that the foregoing factors and contention were insufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your record of three NJPs and special court—martial conviction, and the fact that you accepted discharge rather than face trial by court-martial for two prolonged periods of UA totalling nearly a year. Consequently, when...
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 | CY2001 | 02131-01
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 28 June 1979 you During the period from 22 July 1979 to 26 August 1980 you were in a UA status on five occasions for a total of 272 days. materials submitted were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your lengthy periods of UA, and your request for...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 02552-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 September 1999. 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 | CY2009 | 02317-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 February 2010. 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. You served without disciplinary infraction until 5 March 1979, when you began a period of unauthorized absence (UA) that was not terminated...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 5024-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 January 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. While the request is not in your record, it is presumed that you submitted a written request for an other than honorable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for the foregoing offenses. Consequently, when...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09667-06
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.On 27 August 1979 you enlisted in the Marine Corps at age 17 with parental consent. On 18 August 1981...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00433-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 June 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. discharged.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02401-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 March 2008. Subsequently, your request for discharge was granted, and on 3 April 1980 you received an other than honorable discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07820-06
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 18 August 1976 at age 18. During this period of UA, you were convicted by...