Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01492-02
Original file (01492-02.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

                                                                                                             WMP
                                                                                                             Docket No: 1492-02
 30 September 2002
MR XXXX XXXX

Dear Mr. Xxxx:
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 25 September 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 Marine Corps on 14 September 1963 for four years at age 17. Your record reflects that you served without incident until 13 May 1964, when you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for unauthorized absence from 4 May to 9 May 1964, a period of five days. The punishment imposed was a forfeiture of $40.
On 21 July 1964, you were convicted by special court-martial of an unauthorized absence from 8 June to 7 July 1964, a period of 29 days. The punishment imposed was confinement at hard labor for six months and forfeitures of $55 per month for six months. On 27 July 1964 the convening authority modified and approved a sentence of confinement for four months and forfeitures of $55 per month for four months.
On 19 March 1965, a psychiatric consultation was conducted due to your episodes of impulsive and anti-social behavior. You were diagnosed with an emotionally unstable personality, but the psychiatrist recommended that you be returned to duty. However, if your behavior and lack of self control presented a problem, then you should be processed for administrative separation.







On 30 April 1965, you were apprehended by civil authorities, charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and held without bond until trial. However, on 5 May 1965, you were released and all charges were dropped.
On 16 June 1964, you were convicted by special court-martial of unauthorized absence from 25 March to 6 April 1965, a period of 12 days; 7 April to 5 May 1965, a period of 28 days; and missing movement in April 1965. The punishment imposed was confinement at hard labor for six months and forfeitures of $40 per month for six months. On 23 June 1965, the convening authority approved a sentence of confinement and forfeitures for four months. Subsequently, the supervisory authority only approved confinement for three months and forfeitures of $25 per month for three months. On 3 August 1965, the convening authority suspended all unexecuted confinement for a period of six months.
On 1 January 1966, a psychiatric consultation was conducted because you were found sleeping with another male servicemember. You were again diagnosed with an emotionally unstable personality and the attending psychiatrist strongly recommended administrative separation by reason of unsuitability.
On 20 January 1966, you were notified that separation action was being initiated by reason of unsuitability due to inability to adapt to the requirements of military life. After you were advised of and waived all of your procedural rights, the separation authority directed a general discharge by reason of unsuitability. On 3 March 1966, you were so discharged.
Characterization of service is based, in part, on conduct and proficiency averages, which are computed from marks assigned on a periodic basis. Your conduct and proficiency averages were 3.7   and 3.6 respectively. In order to receive a fully honorable characterization of service, an individual was required to attain a conduct average of 4.0 and a proficiency average of 3.8.

In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors such as your youth and immaturity, and your good post-service conduct. However, the Board concluded that your three periods of unauthorized absence totaling 74 days, convictions by two special courts-martial, and your failure to attain the required averages in conduct and proficiency, clearly warranted a general discharge. Furthermore, the Board found that even with good post-service conduct your service did not warrant recharacterization to an honorable discharge. Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
2
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

















3

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00130-01

    Original file (00130-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your allegations of error and A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 October 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. "I want out of the military service because On 16 July 1968 you received On 14 June You On 28 March 1969, the Naval Discharge Review Board considered your case and concluded that the original...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00642-02

    Original file (00642-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 July 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures'applicable to the proceedings of this Board. a forfeiture of $33 and 14 days of restriction. 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 | CY2010 | 20100007158

    Original file (20100007158.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 6 May 1966, the convening authority approved only so much of the sentence as provided for a bad conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement at hard labor for 9 months, and reduction to PV1/E-1; and except for the bad conduct discharge, he ordered the sentence executed and the record of trial be forwarded to The Judge Advocate General of the Army for appellate review. He was discharged from the Army on 28 September 1966. The evidence of record shows he was tried...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01122-09

    Original file (01122-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 were notified of pending administrative separation action by reason of convenience of the government due to the diagnosed disorder. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03334-01

    Original file (03334-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. confinement at hard labor for six months, forfeitures of $55 per months for six months, reduction in rate to EMFR (E-l), and a bad The convening authority approved the sentence conduct discharge. The Board noted the aggravating factor that each of the prolonged periods of UA were terminated...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 12014-10

    Original file (12014-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 July 2011. 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. Therefore, you were recommended for administrative separation with a general discharge due to unsuitability.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00347-99

    Original file (00347-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You were sentenced to confinement at hard labor for four months, forfeitures of $55 per month for four months and a bad conduct discharge. Thereafter, the commanding officer recommended an You were so discharged on An enlisted The Chief of Naval The board concluded The Board noted your contentions that you had an NJPs and convictions by four summary courts-martial and a In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors such as your youth and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07446-10

    Original file (07446-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 April 2011. 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 | 03539-01

    Original file (03539-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You were again advanced to PFC and On 9 June 1969 you were The DD Form 214 shows that you had three periods of lost time, UA from 10 February to 10 March 1967 and two periods of confinement from 11 April to 12 June and 22 October to 21 December 1967. for entitlement to the Good Conduct Medal commenced on 26 October 1967, the day after your summary court-martial conviction. The DD Form 214 also indicates that eligibility Regulations provided that individuals discharged for the convenience of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 04653-08

    Original file (04653-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 February 2009. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, togethér with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. On 10 January 1966, your commanding officer initiated administrative separation by reason of unsuitability, and recommended a general...