DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
CRS
Docket No: 2784-02
27 February 2003
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 5 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 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.
The Board found that you enlisted in the Navy on 16 June 1975. The record
reflects that you received six nonjudicial punishments. The offenses
included unauthorized absences totalling ten days.
On 19 August 1978 the commanding officer recommended that you be
separated with a general discharge by reason of misconduct. When informed
of this recommendation, you elected to waive the right to present your
case to an administrative discharge board. After review by the discharge
authority, the recommendation for separation was approved and on 30
August 1978 you received a general discharge.
In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and immaturity and the
contention that you were told that the ~discharge would be upgraded after
six months. However, the Board concluded that these factors were not
sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge, given your
record of frequent involvement with
military authorities. In this regard, the Board noted that you were the
subject of six disciplinary actions within a period of less than four
years. Further, no discharge is upgraded merely due to the passage of time.
Based on the foregoing, the Board concluded that no change to the discharge
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
2
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 00051-03
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 October 2003. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a recharacterization of your service because of your repetitive periods of UA, which resulted in a court-martial conviction, and since your conduct average -was insufficiently high to warrant a fully characterization of service. Consequently, when applying for a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 02255-03
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 19 January 1978, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for a brief period of unauthorized absence and were awarded a forfeiture of pay, restriction, and extra duty. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3140-13
Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 February 2014. On 14 July 1978 the discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed a general discharge by reason of unsuitability, and on 21 July 1978, you were so separated. -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 | CY2014 | NR5106 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 May 2015. 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 | CY2002 | 01584-02
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 error or injustice. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 03256-12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 February 2013. 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 | CY2006 | 10352-06
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 that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Nevertheless, the Board found these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08567-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 September 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. After review by the discharge authority, the recommendation for separation was approved and on 30 March 1979 you received a general discharge by...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 01425-03
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 October 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 probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01945-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval ° Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 March 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. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge because of the seriousness of...