DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
S
ELP
Docket No. 6286-01
18 January 2002
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.
Your allegations of error and injustice were
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records,
sitting in executive session,
16 January 2002.
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.
considered your application on
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 Navy on 26 March 1969
The record reflects that you were
for four years at age 18.
advanced to SA (E-2) and served for 14 months without incident.
However, during May and June 1970, you received two nonjudicial
punishments (NJP) and were convicted by summa ry court-martial.
Your offenses consisted of two instances of disrespect, failure
to obey a lawful order, resisting apprehension, and dereliction
of duty.
On 2 December 1970 you were convicted by special court-martial of
a six-day period of unauthorized absence (UA), disrespect towards
an officer, three specifications of disrespect towards a petty
officer, robbery of an MRSN (E-3) of fifteen cents, assault,
using obscene language towards a female, and breaking
restriction.
five months, forfeitures of $88 per month for six months, and a
bad conduct discharge.
You were sentenced to confinement at hard labor for
On 12 January 1971 a review by the convening authority noted that
both counsels in their concluding remarks on findings, argued
matters not in evidence.
that you were not prejudiced by this error.
authority approved the sentence but reduced the confinement to 45
However, the convening authority found
The convening
Thereafter, the Navy
days and the forfeitures to four months.
Court of Military Review affirmed the findings and the sentence.
On 23 February 1971 you waived the right to request restoration
to duty and requested that the bad conduct discharge be executed.
You received the bad conduct discharge on 17 May 1971.
The Board concluded that the foregoing factors
In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors such as your youth and immaturity,
limited education, good post-service conduct, letters of
reference, and the fact that it has been nearly 30 years since
you were discharged.
The Board noted your contentions to the
effect that your case was prejudiced by errors and that you were
unjustly accused.
and contentions were insufficient to warrant recharacterization
of your discharge given your record of two
by a summary court-martial and a special court-martial.
Board is prohibited by law from reviewing the findings of a
court-martial and must restrict its review to determining if the
sentence of the court-martial should be reduced as a matter of
In other words, your claim of prejudicial error or
clemency.
that you were unjustly accused cannot be considered by the Board.
The Board noted the aggravating factors that you waived your
right to request restoration to duty,
to earn a discharge under honorable conditions.
concluded that you were guilty of too much misconduct in only 22
months of service to warrant recharacterization.
concluded that the discharge was proper and no clemency was
warranted.
Accordingly, your application has been denied.
names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished
upon request.
NJPs and convictions
the one opportunity you had
The Board
The
The Board thus
The
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. 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.
You are entitled to have
Sincerely,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
2
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 09717-05
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 existence of probable material error or injustice.The Board found that you enlisted in the Marine Corps on 14 August 1967. Nevertheless, the Board...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05591-00
The record shows that on 6 March 1995 the U. S. you began appellate leave After your release from confinement, and remained in that status until the dishonorable discharge was Navy- issued. Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the proceedings and set aside the finding of guilty to the charge of disrespect A majority of the court but affirmed the remaining findings. 1996, the Court of Criminal Appeals again set aside your conviction of disrespect, once again found, on a split...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11385-09
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. You received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on two occasions for failure to go to your appointed place of duty and unauthorized absence (UA) from your unit for a period of four days. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 00494-03
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 June 2003. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. conduct discharge was issued on 10 May 1963. confinement at hard labor for three The to forfeiture of $40 pay per On 2 April 1965 you elected The bad such as your...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 00344-06
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 existence of probable material error or injustice.You enlisted in the Navy on 11 September 1975 at age 18. It is clear from the record that several...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00508-01
to duty were denied and you received the bad conduct discharge on 27 September 1962. The Board concluded that there was no connection between the hepatitis and the offenses which resulted in your conviction and discharge. 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 | CY2003 | 00382-03
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 August 2003. 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. However, the Board...
NAVY | DRB | 1997_Navy | ND97-01338
SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), Manual for Discharge Review 1984, Chapter 9, Standards for Discharge Review, states, in part:“9.3 Equity of the Discharge A discharge shall be deemed to be equitable unless: Under the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 86, for unauthorized absence for a period in excess of 30 days and/or Article 85, desertion; if adjudged at a Special or General Court-Martial. PART...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 00854-06
In addition, the Board considered an advisory opinion dated 7 March 2006 from the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General, which addresses the issues of abandonment of rank and the validity of a charged offense. Specifically, reference (a) asks, “{d]id Ensign Eastburn’s use of obscenity during his phone conversation with Petitioner on 24 October 2003, constitute an abandonment of rank such that it Constituted a defense to the cha~ge of disrespect to an officer?” Additionally, reference (a)...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00327-01
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, during the seven month period from March 1973 to October 1973 you received four nonjudicial punishments ( N J P ) and were convicted by a summary court-martial. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...