Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03313-02
Original file (03313-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370.510

0

WMP
Docket No:
10 October 2002

3313-02

This is in reference to your application for correction of your
husband's 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 9 October 2002.
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this
Board.
of your application, together with all material submitted in
support thereof,
your husband's naval record and applicable
statutes, regulations and policies.

Documentary material considered by the Board consisted

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 Marine Corps on 31
August 1953 for three years at age 17. Your record reflects
you served without incident until 28 July 1954, when you
received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for being out of uniform
in a public place.
restriction.
be at your appointed place of duty.
14 days of restriction.

On 31 August 1954 you received NJP for failure to
The punishment imposed was

The punishment imposed was 14 days of

 

that

On 14 September 1954, you were convicted by summary  
martial of breaking restriction.
forfeiture of $45, 30 days of restriction and reduction to
private.
the adjudged sentence and ordered its execution.

On 16 September 1954, the convening authority approved

The punishment imposed was a

court-

Your record further reflects that on   22 July 
NJP for failure to obey a lawful order.
was 10 hours of extra duty.
by summary court-martial of two days of unauthorized absence
from 25 June to 27 June 1955.
confinement at hard labor for 15 days and a forfeiture of $40.
On 29 June 1955, the convening authority approved the adjudged
sentence and ordered its execution.

you received
The punishment imposed
On 28 June 1955, you were convicted

The punishment imposed was

1955 

On 29 September 1955, you were convicted by special  
martial of 16 days of unauthorized absence, from 9 to 25
September 1955.
The punishment imposed was confinement at hard
labor for six months and forfeitures of $67.60 per month for six
months.
On 30 September 1955, the convening authority approved
a sentence of confinement for four months and forfeitures of $67
per month for four months.

court-

On 28 January 1956, you were apprehended by civil authorities
and charged with two instances larceny of an automobile and held
without bond pending trial.
convicted of these offenses and sentenced to two years service
on the public roads.

On 29 February 1956 you were

On 8 March 1956, you were recommended for an undesirable
discharge by reason of misconduct due to conviction by civil
authorities.
recommended an undesirable discharge.
approved by the discharge authority on 17 April 1956.
April 1956 you were so discharged.

A discharge board, held on 5 April 1956,

This recommendation was

On 23

However, the Board concluded that your three  

In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed
all potentially mitigating factors such as your youth and
immaturity, and your contention that you have good post service
conduct.
three convictions by court-martial,
for two instances of larceny of an automobile, clearly supported
The Board
the undesirable discharge by reason of misconduct.
additionally noted that your FBI report shows several  
service convictions.
denied.
furnished upon request.

post-
Accordingly, your application has been

The names and votes of the members of the panel will be

and your civil conviction

NJP's and

You are entitled to have

In this regard,

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such
that favorable action cannot be taken.
the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and
material evidence or other matter not previously considered by
the Board.
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.

it is important to keep in mind that

Sincerely,

W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director

3



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04999-02

    Original file (04999-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, application on 4 December 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted your husband's naval record and applicable Your allegations of error and considered your After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05040-02

    Original file (05040-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 November 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. On 19 November 1956 you received NJP for The punishment The punishment imposed was 10 On 13 February 1957 you were convicted by summary court-martial of failure to obey a lawful order and damaging government property. ...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070009864

    Original file (20070009864.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    That regulation provided for the discharge of individuals who had demonstrated their unfitness by giving evidence of undesirable habits and traits of character manifested by misconduct. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial and he NJP imposed against him on four separate occasions as a result of his acts of indiscipline. __Jeffrey C. Redmann__ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20070009864 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 20071213 TYPE OF DISCHARGE DATE...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03152-01

    Original file (03152-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    your application, thereof, your naval record, and policies. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of together with all material submitted in support and applicable statutes, regulations, A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 February 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this After careful and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04663-02

    Original file (04663-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 November 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. On 7 February 1958 you received NJP for failure to The punishment imposed was The punishment imposed was a reduction you were convicted by summary court-martial On 22 February 1958, of two instances of breach of the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01450-00

    Original file (01450-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD S a . The court sentenced him to a f. Subsequently Petitioner was processed for an administrative discharge based on his conviction by civil On 25 February 1955 the discharge authority authorities. That this Report of Proceedings be filed in Petitioner's b. naval record.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 08438-98

    Original file (08438-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 April 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 After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07134-00

    Original file (07134-00.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. Your record further reflects that on 19 May 1954 you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of an eight day period of UA and sentenced to hard labor for 15 days, a $10 forfeiture of On 9 September 1954, while in a UA status, you were apprehended by civil authorities for temporary...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04497-02

    Original file (04497-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 January 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 30 June 1955 you received an undesirable discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9610973C070209

    Original file (9610973C070209.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 14 April 1956 the applicantÂ’s commander requested that he be discharged from the service for fraudulent entry under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206. However, following another review on 25 November 1969 the ADRB decided to upgrade his undesirable discharge to a general discharge under honorable conditions. Since there is no basis to grant that portion of his request pertaining to his administrative separation, there is likewise no basis for changing his RE code.