Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03817-02
Original file (03817-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

TJR
Docket No: 3817-02
6 December 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 3 December 2002.
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
of this
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of
Board.
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 the evidence submitted was insufficient
to establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice.

You enlisted in the Navy on 29 April 1960 at the age of 17, and
served without disciplinary incident.

On 3 January 1961, after undergoing a psychiatric evaluation, you
reaction and recommended
were diagnosed with a passive aggressive
for an administrative separation.
processed for separation by reason of unsuitability, and on 10
August 1961 you were issued a general discharge.

Subsequently, you were

Character of service is based, in part, on conduct and overall
trait averages which are computed from marks assigned during
periodic evaluations.
of 3.0 in conduct was required at the time of your discharge for
a fully honorable characterization of service.

Your conduct average was 2.0.

An average

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth and immaturity and you contention that you should
never have enlisted in the Navy.
concluded these factors and contention were not sufficient to

Nevertheless, the Board

warrant recharacterization of your discharge because your conduct
average was insufficiently high to warrant an honorable
discharge.

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



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07844-01

    Original file (07844-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 May 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings Board. Your conduct average was 3.8. 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 | 01433-02

    Original file (01433-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 August 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary materi'al 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. of 4.0 in...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11622-10

    Original file (11622-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval | Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 August 2011. 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,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04674-01

    Original file (04674-01.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. An average of 3.0 in conduct was The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your prior honorable service, post service conduct, and your contention that the general discharge was unjust and too severe as...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07567-08

    Original file (07567-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 June 2009. Furthermore, disciplinary action and an administrative separation are appropriate for alcohol related offenses. 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 | CY2008 | 01637-08

    Original file (01637-08.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. Characterization of service is determined by a service member's conduct, actions, performance and marks assigned on a periodic basis. The Board also considered your contention that your service warranted an honorable characterization of service.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03794-02

    Original file (03794-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient You enlisted in the Navy on 7 December 1973 at the age of 17. Your conduct average was 2.0. and the record contains no such evidence.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06342-01

    Original file (06342-01.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. On 1 November 1960 you received NJP for On 30 January 1961 you were convicted by convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of absence from your appointed place of duty and were sentenced to restriction and extra duty for 10 days and a $40 forfeiture of pay. Consequently, when applying for a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11122-06

    Original file (11122-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 February 2007. 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. Minimum average marks of 4.0 in conduct and 3.8 in proficiency were required for a fully honorable characterization of service at the time of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04467-01

    Original file (04467-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 December 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change in the characterization of your service because of your repetitive misconduct, and since your conduct average was insufficiently high to warrant...