Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02433-02
Original file (02433-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

TJR
Docket No: 2433-02
9 October 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 Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 8 October 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 the evidence submitted was insufficient
to establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice.

You enlisted in the Navy on 14 February 1978 at the age of 19. On
(NJP) for a
24 October 1978 you received nonjudicial punishment
day of unauthorized absence (UA),
absence from your appointed
place of duty, and failure to obey a lawful order.
punishment imposed was a $100 forfeiture of pay and a suspended
reduction in rate.

The

 

On 19 December 1979 you received NJP for a four day period of UA
and were awarded extra duty and restriction for 10 days.
Approximately five months later,
on 28 May 1980, you received
your third NJP for two specifications of failure to obey a lawful
order and four periods of absence from your appointed place of
duty.
The punishment imposed was a $250 forfeiture of pay and
restriction and extra duty for 20 days.

You were then UA during the 196 day period from 3 July 1980 to 15
January 1981.
Subsequently, you submitted a written request for
an other than honorable discharge in order to avoid trial by
court-martial for the foregoing period of UA.
submitting this request for discharge, you conferred with a

Prior to

advised of your rights, and

As a result of this

On 4 March 1981 your request for discharge was

qualified military lawyer, were
warned of the probable adverse consequences of   accepting such a
discharge.
granted and on 12 March 1981 you received an other than honorable
discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.
action, you were spared the stigma of a court-martial conviction
and the potential penalties of a punitive discharge and
confinement at hard labor.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth and immaturity, your numerous character reference
statements, and the statement from the American Legion provided
in support of your case.
contention of good post service conduct.
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) report states that since discharge,
you have been convicted by civil authorities on several
occasions.
Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors and
contention were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of
your discharge because of your frequent misconduct and the
lengthy period of UA which resulted in your request for
discharge.
extended to you when your request for discharge was approved
since, by this action, you escaped the possibility of confinement
at hard labor and a punitive discharge.
The Board also concluded
that you received the benefit of your bargain with the Navy when
your request for discharge was granted and should not be
permitted to change it now.
been denied.

The Board believes that considerable clemency was

The Board further considered your

However, a Federal

Accordingly, your application has

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



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 01604-03

    Original file (01604-03.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 March 2003. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05345-02

    Original file (05345-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 January 2003. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. On 29 July 1980 you were convicted by a special court-martial of two periods of unauthorized absence totaling 131 days, from 31 You were sentenced to confinement at hard January to 26 March 1980 and 28 April to 14 July...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05796-10

    Original file (05796-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 March 2011. On 14 June 1979, you received NUP for being disrespectful toward you a chief petty officer on two occasions, and failure to obey a written regulation. On 17 February 1983, after appellate review, you received the BCD.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03354-01

    Original file (03354-01.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 November 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. these factors...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04465-01

    Original file (04465-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 November 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. The record does not indicate if any disciplinary action was taken for this period of UA. good post service conduct, and your However, the Board concluded these...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 00142-03

    Original file (00142-03.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 October 2003. On 16 October 1980 an ADB recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct. 2 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 | 10960-02

    Original file (10960-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 October 2003. On 17 August 1981 you received a fourth NJP for two periods of UA totalling four days and were awarded restriction and extra duty for 14 days and a $80 forfeiture of pay. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is existence of probable on the applicant to demonstrate the material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 01317-04

    Original file (01317-04.rtf) 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.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable materialThe Board found that you enlisted in the Naval Reserve on 26 June 1976, and commenced 36 months of active duty on 30...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 05544-09

    Original file (05544-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application.on 27 April 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with ail 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 | CY2002 | 09492-02

    Original file (09492-02.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 August 2003. 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 8 June 1981 the discharge authority directed an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct.