Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04968-01
Original file (04968-01.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: 4968-01
7 January 2002

Dear

This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant  
States Code, Section 1552.

.to the provisions of Title 10, United

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 3 January 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 of
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.

Your record reflects that on 15 May 1970 you received

The punishment imposed was a reduction to  

The Board found you enlisted in the Navy on 7 August 1969 at the
age of 18.
nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for a 28 day period of unauthorized
absence (UA).
E-l and correctional custody for 30 days.
On 21 July 1970 you
were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of a 14 day period
of UA and failure to obey a lawful order.
confinement at hard labor for one month.
were convicted by SCM of a 54 day period of UA.
sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 15 days, restriction
for 30 days, and a $80 forfeiture of pay.

You were sentenced to
On 14 October 1970 you

paygrade

You were

On 20 October 1970 you were notified of pending administrative
separation action by reason of unfitness.
waived your rights to consult with legal counsel, submit a
statement in rebuttal to the separation,
to an administrative discharge board.
commanding officer recommended an other than honorable discharge
by reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement of a

Subsequently, your

At that time you

and to present your case

The discharge

court-

The Board also considered your

discreditable nature with military authorities.
authority approved the foregoing recommendation and directed an
other than honorable discharge by reason of unfitness, and on 29
October 1970 you were so discharged.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth and immaturity.
contentions that you were punished twice for the same offense,
thus becoming a victim of double-jeopardy, and that your  
martial conviction did not warrant an other than honorable
Additionally, the Board considered your contention
discharge.
that your diagnosed schizophrenia was the cause of your periods
The Board concluded these factors and contentions were
of UA.
not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge
because of the serious nature of your repetitive and lengthy
periods of UA which resulted in NJP and two court-martial
convictions.
the record, and you submitted none to support your contention
that you were schizophrenic or, if you were, that this disorder
Your contention pertaining to
contributed to your misconduct.
double jeopardy is without merit.
your case, the Board concluded your discharge was proper as
issued and no change is warranted.
has been denied.

The Board also noted that there is no evidence in

Given all the circumstances of

Accordingly, your application

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 | 02772-02

    Original file (02772-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 November 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. for 14 days and a $20 forfeiture of pay. 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 | CY2001 | 05019-01

    Original file (05019-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your record reflects that on 22 September 1969 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for a 25 day period of unauthorized absence (UA) and were awarded restriction for 14 days and a seven day forfeiture of pay. On 14 May 1973 you received an On 29 The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and immaturity, limited education, low test scores, The Board further considered your and Vietnam service. ...

  • 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 | CY2002 | 10197-02

    Original file (10197-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 September 2003. imposed was reduction to On 11 March and again on 5 May 1959 you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of two periods of unauthorized absence (UA) totalling three days and breaking restriction. January 1961 the discharge authority then directed an undesirable discharge by reason of unfitness due to frequent involvement of a discreditable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | NC9808805

    Original file (NC9808805.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 July 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. 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 | CY2006 | 08092-06

    Original file (08092-06.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 the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 8 October 1969 at age 17. However, your request was denied and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00595-01

    Original file (00595-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 July 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative' regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Your record reflects that on 25 October 1956 you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of a two day period of unauthorized absence You were sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 15 days and a $30 forfeiture...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 08805-98

    Original file (08805-98.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 July 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. However, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given the seriousness of your frequent...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00493-01

    Original file (00493-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 5 November 1974 you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of a 22 day period of UA and were sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 30 days and a $200 forfeiture of pay. Subsequently, the discharge authority directed an 4 other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct, and on 27 The February 1975 you were so discharged and assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code. and your contentions that you could use of alcohol and drugs, and The Board further considered your The Board...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 01145 12

    Original file (01145 12.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 November 2012. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant changing the characterization of your discharge, given your record of three NJP’s, two convictions by SPCM’s, and by two SCM’s of serious misconduct. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...