DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
                    BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
                                2 NAVY ANNEX
                          WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100


                                                     TJR
                                                     Docket No: 5477-02
                                                     26 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.
              3
  A three—member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting
  in executive session, considered your application on 25 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 the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the
  existence of probable material error or injustice.

  You enlisted in the Navy on 17 July 1953 at the age of 24 and served
  without disciplinary incident. At the time of enlistment you stated that
  you were single with no dependents, and that you resided with your
  parents.

  On 29 March 1957 you submitted a record of emergency data form which
  stated that you were single with no dependents. However, on 19 April and
  27 September 1957, and 27 April 1959, you submitted records of emergency
  data which indicated that you were married to (CT) Camerino but had no
  dependents.

  On 4 May 1959, at the expiration of your enlistment, you were honorably
  discharged. On the next day, 5 May 1959, you reenlisted in the Navy and
  signed an enlistment contract in which you stated that you were married
  and had one dependent child. However, the contract did not reveal the
  names of your wife or the child.















On 30 October 1961 the Bureau of Naval Personnel (BUPERS) received a letter
from (SS) Camerino, stating that she was your legal wife, had custody of
your three children, and was residing with your parents. On 12 October 1961
BUPERS, in response to the foregoing letter, informed (SS) Camerino that
she was not the lawful wife of record, and requested that she provide a
copies of the marriage and birth certificates. BUPERS also requested an
explanation as to why the Navy was not aware of the marriage and why there
were no requests for financial assistance for the children.

In March 1962, during an investigation into the allegations of fraudulent
enlistment, (CT) Camerino submitted a letter which stated that she was your
wife because the two of you were married on 27 August 1956, and had
children. At that time, you denied being married to (SS) Camerino. On 6
March 1962, after receiving documented evidence to substantiate your
marriage to (SS) Camerino, BUPERS determined that the marriage to (CT)
Camerino on 27 August 1956 was invalid. However, on 10 April 1962, you
stated that the information provided by (SS) Camerino was incorrect and
that you never entered into any marriage with (SS) Camerino prior to your
marriage to (CT) Camerino. You also denied fraudulent entry into the Navy.

On 25 June 1962 you were then notified of pending administrative separation
action by reason of misconduct due to fraudulent enlistment as evidenced by
your failure to correctly disclose your marital and dependency information.
At that time, you waived your right to consult with legal counsel and to
present your case to an administrative discharge board. You did, however,
submit a written statement in which you denied being guilty of the charge
of fraudulent enlistment. On 28 June 1962 your commanding officer
recommended a general discharge by reason of misconduct due to fraudulent
enlistment. On 16 July 1962 this recommendation was approved and the
discharge authority directed a general discharge by reason of misconduct.
On 30 July 1962 you were so discharged.

Your record contains a letter from the Chief of Naval Personnel (CNP) of 20
December 1962 which states, in part, as follows:

      (Basic allowance for quarters) was disapproved in behalf of (CT)
      Camerino, as subject’s wife, as a valid marriage on 27 August 1956 was
      not established..., man flatly denied that he ever entered into any
      marriage with (SS) Camerino.... in view of the evidence and man’s
      eventual discharge for fraudulent enlistment, his statements can be
      given little credit or credence..., it has been determined that man
      did not enter into his marriage of 27 August 1956 in good faith and
      payments made in behalf of (CT) Camerino, as his wife, can not be
      validated.














                                      2




The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors, such as your prior honorable service and
your contention that you served in the Navy with pride and honor and
deserve a honorable discharge and retirement pay. Nevertheless, the Board
concluded these factors and contentions were not sufficient to warrant a
change in the characterization of your discharge. The Board concluded that
your failure to correctly disclose your marital and dependency status was
sufficient to support a general discharge. Further, individuals separated
by reason of fraudulent enlistment often received undesirable discharges,
and the Board noted that you were fortunate to receive a general 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


















                                      3