Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05250-00
Original file (05250-00.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: 5250-00
31 January 2001

Dear

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 23 January 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.

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.

The Board found you enlisted in the Marine Corps on 26 June 1968
at the age of 27.
nearly a year without incident but on 13 May and again on 17 June
1969 you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for disrespect and
two specifications of failure to obey a lawful order.
September 1970 you received NJP for communicating a threat.

Your record reflects that you served for

On 2

two specifications of disrespect,
making a false official

Your record further reflects that on 22 and 23 January 1971 you
received NJP for disobedience,
failure to obey a lawful order,
statement, and breaking restriction.
Shortly thereafter, on 5
March 1971, you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of
an Article 134 offense in that you appeared improperly dressed
for inspection because your shoes had not been shined, you had
not shaven, your hair had not been cut, and you were wearing
shiny collar emblems with an unpressed uniformed.
You were
sentenced to restriction for a month,
pay, and reduction to  

$84.10 in forfeitures of

paygrade E-2.

S&sequently,  you were notified of pending administrative
separation action by reason of unfitness due to frequent
involvement  of a discreditable nature with military authorities.
At this time you waived your rights to consult with legal counsel
and to present your case to an administrative discharge board or
submit a statement in rebuttal to the discharge.
1971 your commanding officer recommended you be issued a general
discharge by reason of unfitness due to frequent involvement of a
discreditable nature with military authorities as evidenced by
five 
On 9 April 1971 the
discharge authority approved this recommendation and directed a
general discharge by reason of unfitness, and on 13 April 1971
you were so discharged.

NJPs and a court-martial conviction.

On 16 March

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth and immaturity, good post service conduct, and your
contention that you are now disabled.
concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant
recharacterization of your discharge given the repetitive nature
of your misconduct, which resulted in five  
martial conviction.
the record, and you submitted none, to support your contention.
Given all the circumstances of your case, the Board concluded
your discharge was proper as issued and no change is warranted.
Accordingly, your application has been denied.

The Board noted that there is no evidence in

However, the Board

NJPs and a 

court-

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 | CY2007 | 08013-07

    Original file (08013-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 October 2008. 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 | CY2011 | 12499 11

    Original file (12499 11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 October 2012. 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 | CY2013 | NR4905 13

    Original file (NR4905 13.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 April 2014. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10329-02

    Original file (10329-02.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 11 May and again on 16 July 1959 you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of a one day period of unauthorized absence (UA), failure to obey a lawful order, absence from your appointed place of duty, resisting arrest, and breach of the peace. The Board, in its review of your...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 04341-08

    Original file (04341-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 February 2009. 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 | CY2011 | 00458-11

    Original file (00458-11.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 reflects that on 12 August 1977, under the Department of Defense Discharge (DOD) Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP), the characterization of your undesirable discharge was changed to general under honorable conditions. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01849-00

    Original file (01849-00.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 August 2000. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. However, on 20 December 1971, you were Your record further reflects that during the period from 12 January to September 1972 you received NJP on two occasions and were convicted twice by SCM. However, the record does...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01918-08

    Original file (01918-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of GLOn, of your United i Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 November 2008. Documentary material considered by the Boar your application, together with all material submit thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes and policies. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and your letters of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 05167-03

    Original file (05167-03.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 Navy on 24 June 1969 at age 19. Subsequently, the discharge authority directed a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 09154-04

    Original file (09154-04.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 the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.You enlisted in the Marine Corps on 13 July 1970 at age 17 and served for a year without disciplinary...